Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of full-time workers, male and female, respectively, in Rhymney Valley, Mid-Glamorgan and Wales earning less than 90 per cent. of the respective United Kingdom averages.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): According to the results of the new earnings survey undertaken in April 1985, the Wales figure is 54 per cent. for both males and females. The corresponding figures for Mid-Glamorgan are 57 per cent. for males and 56 per cent. for females. Similar information is not available for Rhymney Valley.

Mr. Davies: Will the Secretay of State confirm that wages for those in Wales who are employed are not only among the lowest in real terms in the United Kingdom, but in relative terms are falling? If the Government's view is correct, that lower wages mean more employment, how can the Secretary of State justify the record level of unemployment in Wales? How much lower does he want wage levels in Wales to fall before unemployment starts to fall?

Mr. Edwards: The crucial fact which explains the difference in wage levels is the different structures of industry and service employment in different areas. The point about wage levels is their effect upon wage costs. We are concerned about wages being pushed up in a way that adds to wage costs and makes firms uncompetitive. It must be an advantage in any area to ensure that the firms that operate there do so competitively.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, how much young people resent the proposal that wages council protection for them should be scrapped, in particular holiday rights protection, and fear that this will usher in a new era of exploitation of young people? The right hon. Gentleman may be interested in Victorian values, but we know that they are bad, not good, values.

Mr. Edwards: There is a great deal of evidence that the constraints imposed by the wages councils as they have applied to young people have destroyed job opportunities for them. There is also a great deal of evidence in countries which do not have the same restrictions—for example, Germany—that job opportunities for young people are thereby greatly strengthened. I should have thought that that ought to be the priority for the hon. Gentleman, but it does not seem to be.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that in England last year the average wage for men in manufacturing industry was £159, whereas in Wales it was nothing like that figure? Is the objective of the Secretary of State to keep down wages, in a vain bid to try to get work to Wales, or to try to increase the standard of living in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I said that what matters is that wage costs in an industry should be competitive. I welcome the fact that successful industries are able to pay higher wages to their employees. As we diversify and strengthen the Welsh economy, as we are doing, I hope that there will be higher earnings for a great many people.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will not the Government's proposals on Sunday trading further undermine the wages and conditions of the people who live in the valleys and towns of Wales? Would it not be better for the


Government, after six and a half years, to concentrate on getting people back to work regularly for five days, from Monday to Friday?

Mr. Edwards: The important point is that individuals and companies should be able to choose on which days of the week they wish to trade. I see no reason to believe, particularly with the safeguards that will be built into the legislation, that there will be the kinds of effects about which the hon. Gentleman speaks. That has not been the experience in Scotland, which does not have the kind of protective legislation that exists in England.

Mr. Best: Is it not typical of the Opposition and their head in the sand attitude that they are still unaware that the majority of people in Wales want Sunday trading?

Mr. Edwards: Above all, it should not be imposed by law. It should be a matter of individual choice and conscience whether people want to shop on Sunday, and traders should be able to decide whether they wish to open their businesses on Sunday.

House Building

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to seek to ensure that the level of house building meets the current demand and anticipated demand.

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest number of housing starts in Wales this year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): Substantial resources are available to local authorities for housing. So far as new house building in the public sector is concerned, the Government are giving priority to the housing associations, whose starts in the first nine months of this year were 200 per cent. higher than in the same period of 1984. Local authority spending, on the other hand, has changed emphasis towards much needed renovation of the existing stock.
In all, 6,418 housing starts were reported in the first nine months of 1985.

Mr. Anderson: A year ago the Minister's predecessor told me that 11,000 new units of accommodation were required each year to keep pace with demand. Each year since 1980 we have failed to come near that total. Does the Welsh Office realise that that accummulated deficit, year on year, is building up an increasing housing crisis?

Mr. Robinson: We have not changed our overall objectives. Last year's completions, which totalled 9,209, were the best since 1980.

Mr. Coleman: Now that the Minister's answers have revealed the desperate position being faced by the homeless in Wales, will he reveal just a little more and tell us how much of the Chancellor's largesse is likely to come back to Wales for housing? When will we receive the proceeds from the sale of council houses promised repeatedly by his right hon. Friend? When will that money be spent on council housing and housing generally in Wales?

Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend is at this moment considering the implications of the Chancellor's autumn statement for Wales. An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.
As regards capital receipts on the sale of council houses, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the 1980 legislation made it clear that those receipts would not be available for spend in any one year. They are linked to the overall position on capital spending, and they remain so.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend in a position to assess the performance of the various housing authorities in the light of the resources available to them?

Mr. Robinson: We believe that housing associations are making a substantial contribution to housing in Wales. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind when making allocations in the coming year.

Mr. Barry Jones: Why are Welsh housing authorities allowed to spend only 15 per cent. of their council house sale receipts, while English authorities are allowed to spend 20 per cent.?

Mr. Robinson: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is a combination of allocation. The fact that local authorities are allowed to spend 15 per cent. in the coming year is reflected in the overall sums that come from central Government sources.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: By playing with percentages, the Minister has shown a substantial increase in the number of starts in the housing association sector, but will he address himself in greater detail to the question posed by his hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) and study the role of the housing associations in Wales? Will he give an assurance that, in the allocation, there will be a further substantial increase to meet the needs of housing in Wales and also the commitment which the housing associations tell us they can fulfil?

Mr. Robinson: The current programme for the Housing Corporation this year was £43 million. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend is considering the allocations for the coming year, but he is already on record as saying that increased resources for housing are a priority.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: It was encouraging to read last week's statement by the South Wales House-Builders Federation about the record progress in house building, but I noticed that its only major constraint was the availability of land. For that reason, or any other, has my hon. Friend instructed local councils to sell certain school playing fields?

Mr. Robinson: It is not our policy to instruct councils on the manner in which they should use their resources or dispose of surplus land. However, where councils have surplus land, it is our policy to encourage them to sell it.

Education

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the present state of education in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): As our White Paper "Better Schools" made clear, although there have been marked improvements in recent years in both primary and secondary education, sustained efforts will be needed to ensure that all our schools achieve the high standards of our best schools. The Government's education policies for the schools are aimed at securing that objective. I must add that the present strike is doing serious damage to the education of our children.

Mr. Howells: Are not the hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues responsible for the prolonged pay dispute with the teachers? Will he accordingly advise them to get on with the job of trying to sort out this dispute, for the sake of children, teachers and parents?

Mr. Roberts: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government are responsible for prolonging this dispute—quite the reverse. The Government are not intransigent. They have shown their helpfulness by promising to make a further £1·25 billion available over the next four years. That will be in addition to whatever award is received by the teachers by way of increases in wages during those years.

Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware that Clwyd county council is prepared to spend up to £2 million of its normal capital allocation on developing the castle and grounds at Bodelwyddan, at a time when it proposes to defer the school capital programme? Is that not a scandal? Will my hon. Friend bring the utmost pressure to bear on the county council to persuade it to concentrate on its statutory obligations, the principal one being education?

Mr. Roberts: The development at Bodelwyddan castle is a matter for Clwyd county council. I have visited the technical and vocational education Initiative established at the castle, and been very much impressed by it.

Dr. Marek: Is the Minister aware that Labour councillors on Clwyd county council have been against the development and that Conservative councillors have been pushing it? Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with them over the matter?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is confirming what I have already said, that this is primarily a matter for the county council.

Mr. Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have been informed that the National Association of Schoolmasters and the National Union of Teachers have selected both his constituency and mine for special disruptive action? Does that not show a cynical disregard for the welfare and education of our children, and prove beyond any shadow of doubt that much of the present action is politically motivated and has nothing to do with the interests of the teachers?

Mr. Roberts: There is much cynical disregard, in particular, of the interests of the children, about which we are most concerned, although we are also concerned about the interests of the teachers. The Government, as I have said, have shown their helpfulness by saying that further money can be made available over the next four years, provided that we get changes in the pay structure and conditions of service that we require.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: If the Minister wishes to raise the quality of teaching in our schools, will he implement the market law, which is that the higher the wages paid to the teachers, the better will be the quality of the teachers that we have in our schools?

Mr. Roberts: We accept, and have said, that there are shortages of teachers in certain subjects, and that we should like to pay more to attract people to take up teaching in those subjects. That is one of the aims of the restructuring proposed by the Government.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are unemployed in Wales and in Clwyd; by how much this has increased since May 1979, as a total and as a percentage; and how many are long-term unemployed as a total and as a percentage.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 10 October 1985 there were 182,734 unemployed claimants in Wales, an increase of 105,534, or 136·7 per cent., since May 1979. On 10 October 1985 there were 24,982 unemployed claimants in Clwyd. A comparable claimant-based figure for May 1979 in Clwyd is not available. In October 1985, 77,412, or 42·4 per cent., had been unemployed for more than one year in Wales, while for Clwyd the figures were 9,835, or 39·4 per cent.

Mr. Jones: In the Deeside travel-to-work area, 13,000 people are jobless, and manufacturing jobs have recently been lost at Deeside Titanium, P.D. Cans and at Catharall's Brick at Buckley. Will the Secretary of State urgently consider how he may make available the accounts of Buckley Brick, so that the work force may challenge the proposed closure? Does he know of the brick workers' discontent at the low redundancy payments being offered to them? How will he help the brickworkers at Buckley?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will have an Adjournment debate on this and related employment issues later in the week. I suggest that would be a better time at which to discuss the affairs of the company. The hon. Gentleman listed job losses, but he might have listed the impressive number of job gains that have been announced during the same period. For example, there was another announcement of jobs created at Sharp, and the company to which he referred has announced some investment at Lane End, Buckley. He should give both sides of the story.

Mr. Harvey: What would be the effect on foreign confidence, and hence employment, in Wales if a future Labour Government were to implement their proposals to spend an additional £51 billion in public expenditure?

Mr. Edwards: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would severely dent the confidence of investors, who would recall exactly what happened when a similar policy was implemented by the Labour Government, who had to go cap in hand to the IMF, which cut capital programmes by 45 per cent.

Mr. Foot: How does the Secretary of State reconcile those terrible and tragic figures with the renewed boast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a week ago that Britain is in the third, the fourth or the fifth year of national recovery? Has Wales had a share of that national recovery? Will the right hon. Gentleman, even at this eleventh hour, stop the cut in regional aid that he is carrying through, which could only add to those terrible figures?

Mr. Edwards: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the growth in the economy and the fact that it is likely to continue in the year ahead, just as I hope he welcomes the fact that there has been a small reduction in unemployment in Wales during the past month. We have announced a range of measures especially to help the long-term unemployed. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the number of community programme places in Wales will increase from


9,600 in April to more than 20,000 places to be filled by June 1986. That is a sign of the Government's determination to meet the special problems of areas such as Wales.

Mr. Terlezki: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had it not been for his efforts and those of his colleagues at the Welsh Office, trotting the globe to entice foreign industries to come to Wales, and had not those industries come to Wales, unemployment in the Principality would have been much worse?

Mr. Edwards: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the substantial inward investment that has taken place and the fact that about a quarter of all the inward investment to the United Kingdom for two years has come to Wales. That gives the lie to the absurd proposition of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that the Government do not have an effective regional policy.

NCB (Closures)

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if, when he last met the chairman of the National Coal Board, he discussed the recent closure programme.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I met the chairman of the National Coal Board on 14 November and discussed a range of matters affecting the Welsh coalfields.

Mr. Powell: That was not much of a reply, considering the damage that is being caused to parts of Wales, especially Ogmore. I should tell the Secretary of State—the coalfield rapist of Wales—that since 1979 he has closed or been responsible for the closure of the Caerau and the Coegnant collieries in the Llynfi valley. St. John's colliery—the only colliery left in that valley—is subject to the new review procedure. Wyndham Western colliery, which was the only one left in the Ogmore valley after 1979, has also been closed. There is also now a threat to close Garw colliery, which is the only colliery left in the Garw valley.
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the promise that was made by Philip Weekes, reported in the Western Mail, to the Welsh miners who were on strike in April that we would have a new colliery in the Margham area? What does he intend to do—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us now hear the answer to that.

Mr. Edwards: My original answer was precise and answered the main question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that south Wales deep mine losses in 1984–85 amounted to £188 million and that, against that loss-making background, it was inevitable that measures would be taken to deal with the situation. I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that productivity is increasing significantly, that the operating cost per tonne has fallen sharply and that some £38 million of capital expenditure has been announced for 1985–86 for the south Wales coalfield.

Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst enemy that the coal industry in south Wales has is the NUM, associated and allied with some of its friends on the Opposition Benches?

Mr. Edwards: The disastrous strike led by Mr. Scargill and encouraged by the hon. Member for Ogmore

(Mr. Powell) has probably had as catastrophic an effect on the south Wales coalfield as it has had elsewhere on the interests of the NUM.

Mrs. Clwyd: Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to examine the Department of Trade and Industry survey into the post-redundancy experiences of Welsh steel workers? If so, will he say how relevant those findings are to the experiences of coal miners in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: A lesson that we learnt from the experience in the steel industry was the valuable work done by BSC Industries. That is one reason why a substantial share of the comparable operation launched by the NCB has been devoted to south Wales, and I am glad to say that it is already associated with about 600 new jobs.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whereas the steel organisation which was set up to deal with redundancy gave valuable advice to the recipients of redundancy benefit in that industry, it appears that the NCB does not do that, and that no comparable advice is, given to recipients of redundancy in the coal industry? Will he make representations to the NCB and the Secretary of State for Energy to ensure that similar advice is given to recipients of redundancy in the coal industry?

Mr. Edwards: The new NCB industry organisation is, among other things, helping to fund local enterprise trusts and organisations geared to provide that type of advice. However, as my hon. Friend has made a specific point, I shall draw it to the attention of the management of the NCB and follow it up.

Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman seems incapable of understanding the impact of closures on vulnerable valley communities. These communities are now facing social and economic crises, yet the right hon. Gentleman seems to have no sympathy for them. Is he aware that 11,000 jobs have been lost since 1979 in the south Wales coalfield? Is he further aware that 1·5 million tonnes of prime coking coal are being imported into south Wales this year? We feel a sense of betrayal of the Margam deep mine. We look to him to help us on that project.

Mr. Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that the cost per tonne of deep-mined coal bears a relationship to the amount of coal imported, he does not begin to understand anything. He should ask the steel industry about the relationship. I should have thought that he would want a competitive steel industry that can buy coal at a competitive price.

Hill Farming

Mr. Livsey: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the present state of hill farming in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Following the abnormal weather experienced during the summer months this year, farm incomes are expected to be adversely affected in 1985–86. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 8 October that assistance will be given towards the extra costs incurred this year and the amount and extent of that assistance is under consideration. Announcements about this and the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances for 1986 will be made shortly.

Mr. Livsey: When will the Secretary of State pay the hill livestock compensatory allowances? Will he pay them in full?

Mr. Edwards: The hill livestock compensatory allowances are being considered at the moment. It is only within the past 10 days or so that we have had the normal meetings with the unions. They have expressed the hope that an advance payment of allowances will be made this year. The Government are well aware of the need to make early payments to relieve the problems that arise from this year's very wet weather.

Mr. Harvey: Because of the serious difficulties suffered by hill farmers, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a generous outgoers scheme on the milk side?

Mr. Edwards: We already have such an outgoers scheme. Not only has it helped those on the milk side who wished to leave the industry, but it has enabled us to put more than half the Welsh producers back to their original 1983 base levels. We do not have any plans to introduce a further scheme. The European Commission has put forward tentative proposals for a European scheme, and we shall have to consider them in due course.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; what were the equivalent figures in May 1979; and what was the percentage increase in each case.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 10 October 1985 there were 12,911, 29,173 and 182,734 unemployed claimants in the Newport travel-to-work area, Gwent and Wales respectively. The equivalent figure for Wales in May 1979 was 77,200. The increase was 136·7 per cent. Comparable figures for 1979 in Newport and Gwent are not available because of changes to travel-to-work area boundaries and the move to claimant-based figures.

Mr. Hughes: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen last week's report by the Gwent county engineer, Mr. Howard Pullen, who pointed out that, in the past seven years, cash for road maintenance has fallen in real terms by 45 per cent.? Does this not explain why our roads are in such a shocking condition? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, even in the 1930s, Conservative Governments had the wisdom to take people out of the dole queue in great numbers and to employ them on road maintenance.

Mr. Edwards: Of course I appreciate the need for road maintenance. That is why we have carried out the largest and most expensive road maintenance project yet undertaken in Wales. This is being carried out in Gwent on the M4. The need for a continuing maintenance programme will be very much in mind as I take our decisions on the road programme, which results from the public expenditure announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Sir John Stradling Thomas: In view of the figures for Gwent, Wales and Newport that were cited by my right hon. Friend, will he assure me that he will do everything in his power to ensure that, when the Ministry of Defence finally makes up its mind about the disposal of the Vauxhall camp at Monmouth, the Department has it firmly in mind that there should be employment opportunities for

Monmouth? I have been trying to find out the Ministry's plans. I hope that my right hon. Friend has greater success than I have had.

Mr. Edwards: I note my hon. Friend's point. I shall take the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who has responsibility for that matter.

Agricultural Support

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount spent by his Department on agricultural support in Wales in the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The sum of £82·2 million was spent by my Department in support of agriculture in Wales in 1984–85.
In addition, certain other payments under the CAP were made by the intervention board for agricultural produce, including payments in Wales amounting to about £4·7 million on the beef variable premium scheme; about £21·4 million on the sheep variable premium scheme; and about £0·8 million on school milk.

Mr. Thomas: In view of that figure, does the Secretary of State acknowledge the vital contribution made by public expenditure to the Welsh rural economy? Will he give us an assurance that there will be no further attempt to reduce jobs or opportunities for farmers to obtain advice through the advisory services as a result of his Department's privatisation proposals?

Mr. Edwards: My Department's estimated provision for expenditure in support of agriculture in Wales in 1985–86 is £82·7 million. That is a substantial sum. The Welsh Office's share of changes over previous plans for agricultural support for 1986–87 involves a net reduction of about £4 million over the previous year. That reduction mainly reflects revised forecasts of future demand-determined expenditure on grants for capital and other improvements. We have announced that we are making some savings in ADAS and charging for some of its services. I can confirm that there will continue to be provision for a substantial level of advice from ADAS.

Mr. John: When does the Secretary of State expect that the help to compensate for the wet summer will be available? The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced to the Conservative party conference that it was to be finalised by the end of October. October has come and gone, and no aid is forthcoming.

Mr. Edwards: Discussions are going on at the moment. I well understand the need to arrive at early decisions. It is not entirely a straightforward matter to arrive at a scheme that directs help to those people and areas that most need it, because, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the damage and consequences vary substantially. In some places they are horrendous, while in neighbouring areas the effects have been much less. They are not entirely straightforward matters. We are considering them urgently. I hope that it will not be long before we can make an announcement.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend assure sheep farmers in my constituency that the Government will resolutely oppose the EC Commission's surrender to French protectionism by its iniquitous proposal for a claw-back on exported ewes.

Mr. Edwards: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we registered our objections formally. We voted against the European Commission's proposal about a week or 10 days ago. We continue to oppose the alternative proposals. The position is somewhat uncertain at the moment because the original scheme has come to an end and no new scheme has yet formally taken its place. I fully understand the importance of that matter, and the Government will continue to take a resolute stand on it.

Development Board for Rural Wales

Mr. Alex Carlile: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to give extra financial aid to the Development Board for Rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: We are currently considering the board's funding as part of this year's review of public expenditure.

Mr. Carlile: Does the Minister recognise that whatever direct aid is given to Mid Wales Development there is a crying need for greater indirect aid in the form of the rapid development of the east-west road link? Does he accept that there is great dissatisfaction in mid Wales about the lethargy being shown by the Welsh Office in producing that road link?

Mr. Roberts: I am glad that I detected that the hon. and learned Gentleman approves of the budgeting of the development board so far. It has done well this year by having £10·3 million to spend, which is £600,000 more than last year. With regard to roads, yes, representations have been made to me about those roads by the chairman as late as last Friday, and we shall, of course, consider them in our roads programme.

Sporting and Recreational Facilities

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Sports Council in Wales about the availability of sporting and recreational facilities within easy travelling distance of every community in Wales.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I discussed the development of sport in Wales generally with the chairman of the Sports Council for Wales on 30 October.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there is a disgraceful position in the Dwyfor area? There is not one indoor swimming pool or sports centre open to the public in that district. That area has been identified by the Sports Council as the most deprived in Wales in that respect. Will he give an undertaking that when considering the capital allowances for local authorities for the coming year, sympathy will be shown to an application to remedy that weakness?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has already written to me on this subject. The application by the Dwyfor district council for a special capital allocation to build a leisure centre at Pwllheli is still under consideration. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his representations will be taken into account, but I must point out that we have received numerous other applications as well.

Mr. Foot: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that, following the Bradford disaster, many small football

and rugby clubs are having to spend considerable sums of money to make their grounds safe? Is it not right that the Welsh Office, perhaps through the Sports Council, should assist those clubs? Without such help, many of these clubs will be driven out of existence, with the consequences that all of us can imagine.

Mr. Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that clubs are being asked to undertake improvements to their grounds to make them safe. The Government do not accept that there is a case for Government assistance for this aspect of sport.

Mr. Grist: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great need for indoor tennis facilities in Cardiff city? Will his Department give every assistance towards providing these facilities, which are urgently needed in the United Kingdom generally?

Mr. Robinson: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said about indoor tennis courts. I am sure that representations about this matter have also been made to the Sports Council for Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

County Palatine (Visit)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will next visit the county palatine.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Norman Tebbit): On 29 and 30 November next, when I visit Manchester and Blackpool.

Mr. Silvester: When my right hon. Friend goes to the county palatine, will he make sure that he draws attention to the suffering that is now being imposed on some of the residents of the palatinate as a result of the cruel activities of Liverpool city council?

Mr. Tebbit: It is quite likely that on my next visit, or even before it, I may comment upon the follies of those who have been actively destroying the city of Liverpool by their activities on the city council. No doubt I shall be able to quote from the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the many leaders of trade unions who have condemned extreme Left wingers in the Labour party in Liverpool.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: At the same time, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the whole of the county of Greater Manchester and take note of the fact that over the past six years unemployment there has increased from around 5 per cent. to something nearer 14 per cent.? That matter greatly concerns the residents of the area.

Mr. Tebbit: I understand that concern. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Her Majesty's Government have been active in many ways in seeking to combat the problems, of unemployment. As he knows, the average level of unemployment has risen under every Government since the end of the war. These are deep-rooted problems and I know that he, like me, will take some comfort from the fact that at the moment this country is generating more new jobs than the rest of Europe put together.

Duties

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his duties as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Tebbit: My duties are such that I have overall responsibility for the work of the Duchy of Lancaster Office.

Mr. Winnick: That tells us a lot. Is it not also part of the right hon. Gentleman's duty to try to ensure that the deputy chairman of the Tory party does not keep putting his foot into his mouth? The right hon. Gentleman in particular is always talking about other organisations being democratic. Can he explain why there are no elections for the position of party chairman? Why is the appointment subject to only one person's choice?

Mr. Tebbit: If providence had not pre-empted him, the hon. Gentleman would be in danger of making a fool of himself. The fact of the matter is that my duties as chairman of the Conservative party, for which I emphasise I do not answer in this House, are entirely similar to those of the general secretary of the Labour Party, Mr. Whitty, who is not elected to his post, either.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Bishop of Durham (Palace)

Mr. Greenway: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much the Church Commissioners have spent on (a) dilapidations and (b) other works at the palace of the Bishop of Durham in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee): As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate them in the Official Report. However, total expenditure by the Church Commissioners over the last 10 years was £816,000.

Mr. Greenway: Can my hon. Friend say whether that is the truthful expenditure on the palace of the Bishop of Durham, or whether other money is being spent, and if so, from what sources, and why it is being spent? Is it not possible for the Bishop of Durham to live in more modest surroundings, instead of at such enormous cost?

Sir William van Straubenzee: Of the total of about £940,000 which has been spent on the chapel at Auckland castle, about £320,000 was met by grants from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. Auckland castle is a great ancient and historic house, and I understand that there are very strong feelings in the diocese that the bishop of the diocese should continue to reside there. It is illustrative of the great burdens on the Church. For example, we have had to provide £6,300 for the replacement of beetle-infested timbers. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want the bishop to be infested with beetles.

Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people who care about these matters will be glad that the money is being spent? I remind him that Auckland castle is far more important than any of its temporary inhabitants, and far more inspirational than any of them.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I listen carefully to what my hon. Friend, with his special skills in this matter, tells me, but he will join me in reminding ourselves that

this is money that could otherwise be spent on stipends and other matters, and is part of the very expensive heritage of buildings of the Church of England.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend consider hiring a reliable medium to take advice from the late Bishop Hatto about how the inhabitants of the building should be entertained and preserved?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I should be very grateful if my hon. Friend would volunteer for that task.

Following are the figures:

Expenditure on dilapidations and other works by the Church Commissioners on the Bishop of Durham's official house (Auckland castle) over the last 10 years has been as follows:


Dilapidations
Other works
Total



£
£
£


Year to 31.03.76
4,348
125
4,473


Year to 31.03.77
6,493
27
6,520


Year to 30.03.78
24,009
8,520
32,529


Year to 31.03.79
57,325
55
57,380


Nine months to 31.12.79
42,534
1,243
43,777


Year to 31.12.80
118,510
3,941
122,451


Year to 31.12.81
131,581
13,967
145,548


Year to 31.12.82
269,264
20,095
289,359


Year to 31.12.83
17,456
13,730
31,186


Year to 31.12.84
53,325
29,750
83,075



724,845
91,453
816,298

(As a result of the commissioners changing their financial year, the period to 31.12.79 covers only nine months).

Employees (Hours of Work)

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what are the normal hours of work of employees of the Church Commissioners; and if he will make a statement.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Forty-one per week, including lunch breaks.

Mr. Bruinvels: I am not surprised that the Church Commissioners are working from Monday to Friday and doing only 41 hours, and I am relieved that they do not yet have to work on Sundays. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a double standard in operation when the Church Commissioners' assets committee invests £240 million in new shopping centres in Glasgow, Bury St. Edmunds, Ipswich and other areas, and supports several leading shopping chains, such as Mothercare and Habitat, which want to open on Sundays? Should not my hon. Friend, through the Church Commissioners, be encouraging them to stay shut on Sunday, the day of rest?

Sir William van Straubenzee: The Church Commissioners as such have not made any pronouncement on the matter, partly because they wanted to wait and see the terms of any Bill. However, my hon. Friend must not assume that they will necessarily continue to remain silent.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

South Glamorgan Health Authority

Mr. Gwilym Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what were the provisional allocations for spending by South Glamorgan health authority in 1984–85 and 1985–86; on what dates those allocations were advised


to the health authority; and what extra moneys have been found for the health authority in each of these financial years.

Mr. Mark Robinson: The provisional allocations notified to the South Glamorgan health authority in 1984–85 and 1985–86 were £119·4 million and £128·5 million. The revenue and capital elements of these allocations were notified on 10 February and 27 February in 1984 and 25 February and 26 March in 1985. Additional funds totalling £6·3 million were provided during 1984–85, and an additional £0·2 million has been provided in 1985–86. A further £1·27 million of provision for specific developments will be released to the authority when required.

Mr. Jones: We are all appreciative of the real increase in expenditure on the National Health Service achieved by my hon. Friend and his colleagues, particularly the extra moneys that have been found during the financial year. What staff of South Glamorgan health authority has he instructed should be axed?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a 21·25 per cent. increase in the funding of health authorities in Wales since 1979. It is not my right hon. Friend's policy to instruct health authorities to reduce the number of staff. It is for them to decide how to use their allocations.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Northern Arts

Mr. Beith: asked the Minister for the Arts what recent representations he has received from Northern Arts about the impact of the abolition of Tyne and Wear county council on arts spending in the region; and what response he has given.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I have received a number of representations, and I visited Tyne and Wear on 11 November. As I announced in the House on 14 November, the Government will make £25 million available to the Arts Council next year, towards the replacement of arts funding in the abolition areas. It will now be for the Arts Council to decide its regional allocations and for successor authorities to play their part.

Mr. Beith: During his visit to the region last week, did the Minister notice the unique arrangement which means that a large proportion of arts expenditure is funded by Tyne and Wear county council rather than by the districts? Does he think that the excessively London-minded Arts Council has grasped the significance of that in regard to the use of the money that he announced on Thursday? Is he aware that that and the small increase in the base rate of grant will result in rural areas such as Northumberland being left behind when it comes to arts grants while the region tries to sort out the problems created by the abolition of Tyne and Wear?

Mr. Luce: I had useful discussions in Newcastle last week with Tyne and Wear county council and the successor authorities. I am aware of the distribution of money between various authorities and I am satisfied that the Arts Council will take the factors that the hon. Gentleman mentioned fully into account when disbursing

the additional money. As for rural areas, I have announced an increase in the amount of money available for regional development. It will make an important contribution.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Can my hon. Friend extend that assurance to metropolitan county areas generally? I have the west midlands in mind.

Mr. Luce: Yes, I can. It is up to the Arts Council to decide how to disburse the money. I am sure that it will take each region's needs into account.

Mr. Ryman: Can the Minister confirm from his visit to the north-east last week that the whole region utterly opposes the Government's asinine policy of abolishing the county of Tyne and Wear and the resulting chaos?

Mr. Luce: The purpose of my visit was to have constructive discussions—which I had—with Tyne and Wear county council and the successor authorities about how they can play their part in financing the arts, in addition to the Government's role. I thought that the successor authorities demonstrated a positive approach.

Victoria and Albert Museum

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about the voluntary system of charges introduced by the Victoria and Albert museum.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about the introduction of the voluntary entrance fee at the Victoria and Albert museum.

Mr. Luce: Charges are a matter for the trustees' discretion. The trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum have decided to introduce a voluntary donations scheme at the museum and to suggest a donation of £2 per adult and 50p for students and old-age pensioners. The donations will accrue to the Associates of the V and A, an independent fund-raising body, which will use them to support museum ventures not met from the moneys voted by this House.

Mr. Baker: Will my hon. Friend also congratulate Sir Roy Strong and the trustees on devising this popular and sensible means of subsidising the arts? What will he do to encourage other museums to do the same and to retain more of the receipts from charges?

Mr. Luce: It is entirely up to the trustees of national museums to decide what methods they use to provide additional funds. The Government provide basic funding for national museums and will continue to do so, but we should do everything to encourage them to raise extra money by other means to improve services. I would encourage any method of raising extra revenue. Indeed, I am considering methods of improving the system.

Mr. Chapman: While I also commend the initiative taken by the Victoria and Albert museum, and point out that there is a world of difference between its scheme and compulsory charges for our national museums, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that the person who led the publicity campaign against it on television and who said that his taxes had paid for the V and A only showed that his sense of history was as poor as his misplaced histrionics on television?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend. The trustees have discretion and can either raise voluntary donations or


impose admission charges, as the National Maritime museum does. It is at their discretion. I agree with my hon. Friend that almost every other country with a national museum makes charges, and it seems extraordinary that people should discourage the efforts of those who are trying to increase their available resources.

Mr. Tony Banks: We should be proud of our policy of free admission to museums. Does the Minister not realise that these voluntary charges are a form of moral blackmail, and will undoubtedly deter many people from visiting museums? Will he keep a careful check on attendances at the V and A, and, if they fall off, will he dissuade other museums from carrying out a similar policy?

Mr. Luce: I shall not. It is up to the trustees and governing bodies of local museums to decide how they secure extra revenue in addition to the basic funding from the Government. When one considers the range of places that are chargeable, for example, visiting a country house, it is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should say that it is immoral to experiment in this way.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister accept that his comments on the freedom of trustees might be listened to with more care if it were not for the fact that in 1973 and 1974 the present Prime Minister compelled them to introduce charges, the consequence of which was a 50 per cent. decrease in attendances at the V and A during the three months following their introduction? We persuaded the museums to drop those charges, and we shall rescind these charges next time. These are national institutions and they cannot be left to make such decisions, which will result in an immediate fall in attendances. Any extra money will be clawed back.

Mr. Luce: It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that if ever he had the chance to be in office he would look to ways of discouraging museums from raising extra revenue. If museums wish to do so, why should they not have the freedom to improve their services?

Business Support

Mr. Alan Howarth: asked the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to simplify and improve the incentives to businesses to support the arts.

Mr. Luce: The Government have already made a number of tax improvements designed to make it more attractive to give to the arts, thus honouring the commitments in our manifesto. In addition, the business sponsorship incentive scheme has generated an extra £5·5 million in its first year.

Mr. Howarth: Will my hon. Friend seek to impress on his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fact that the complication and uncertainty of the present tax rules discourage many potential sponsors, and that it would be better if we simply allowed businesses that wished to support the arts to set off donations up to a certain percentage of pre-tax profits, as other countries do?

Mr. Luce: I note what my hon. Friend says, and I shall convey his views to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor

of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that during our time in office we have undertaken many moves to encourage businesses to sponsor the arts, ranging from a reduction in the covenanting period to relief from capital transfer tax on all gifts to charities. That is an encouragement to sponsorship. I am anxious to find any way that will enhance further the amount of support from the public and from businesses for the arts.

Mr. Freud: While the Minister has the gratitude of the House, and particularly the people of East Anglia, for his continued support of the business sponsorship scheme, may I ask whether he accepts that opera houses cannot function on an annual basis, and, in order to plan ahead, desperately need endowments?

Mr. Luce: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am grateful for his support of the business sponsorship scheme. I am glad that his wife has benefited from it, and rightly so. The scheme provides support for many regions; not only East Anglia, but all parts. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about opera houses. In addition to any basic grants from the Government, opera houses should be encouraged to find ways of securing extra outside private support.

Regional Facilities

Mr. Pike: asked the Minister for the Arts if he is satisfied that sufficient resources are being made available for the extensions of facilities for the arts in the regions.

Mr. Luce: It is for the Arts Council to allocate its funds, taking due account of the needs of arts bodies, and the contribution of local authorities. I have every confidence in the council's regional development strategy as set out in "The Glory of the Garden", and the grant for 1986–87 which I announced on 14 November will enable it to continue. The £3 million development money allocated by the council in the current year has, I am pleased to say, already generated more than £2 million additional local funding.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister support councils such as Burnley borough council, which is converting the Mechanics building in Burnley to a theatre and a multipurpose arts centre? Will he give that council financial support? Is he aware that it seems that present Government policy will penalise Burnley once it has converted the building and has to meet the revenue costs?

Mr. Luce: I know of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in the Burnley Mechanics Institute Theatre project, but, as he knows, it is now Arts Council policy not to support capital expenditure of the kind that he has described. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look not just to local authorities, but to private sponsorship as well, to help in this connection.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of questions?

Mr. Powell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Given the importance of my question No. 5 and the indequate reply from the Secretary of State, I should like to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meeting which I attended with the Taoiseach on 15 November. I was accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Dr. FitzGerald was accompanied by Mr. Spring, the Tanaiste, and by Mr. Barry, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs.
An agreement was signed between our two Governments, which has been published in a Command Paper. The text of the communique, issued after the meeting, is also included in the Command Paper.
The purpose of the agreement is to promote peace and stability in Northern Ireland; to encourage reconciliation between the two communities there; to create an improved climate of friendship and co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; and to strengthen cross-border co-operation between the two countries, particularly in combating terrorism.
The agreement will not come into force until it has been approved by Parliament and by the Irish Dail. The House will have an early opportunity for a full debate.
The agreement has two principal features. The Irish Government have affirmed in a binding international agreement that the status of Northern Ireland will remain unchanged so long as that is the wish of the majority of its people. They have also recognised that the present wish of a majority is to remain part of the United Kingdom. This is the most formal commitment to the principle of consent made by any Irish Government.
The second main feature of the agreement is the establishment of an intergovernmental conference within the framework of the existing Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. The conference will be serviced by a secretariat on a continuing basis. In this conference the Irish Government may put forward views and proposals on certain aspects of Northern Ireland affairs.
If devolution is restored—both Governments are committed to support this—then those matters which become the responsibility of the devolved Government will be taken out of the hands of the intergovernmental conference. The conference will also discuss cross-border co-operation, including improved security co-operation.
The two Governments have agreed to make determined efforts to resolve any differences that may arise, but the conference will not be a decision-making body. Full responsibility for the decisions and administration of government will remain with the United Kingdom Government north of the border and with the Irish Government south of the border.
The first meeting of the intergovernmental conference will take place as soon as practicable after the agreement enters into force. Particular subjects on which the conference will concentrate at its initial meetings are: ways of improving relations between the security forces and the minority community in Northern Ireland; action to improve security co-operation between our two Governments; ways to help to underline the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice.
The agreement recognises that it would be for parliamentary decision in Westminster and Dublin whether to establish an Anglo-Irish parliamentary body of the kind described in the Anglo-Irish studies report of November 1981.
The Irish Government have announced in the communiqué their intention to accede as soon as possible to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. We welcome this.
No single agreement can resolve the deep-rooted and complex problems of Northern Ireland and deliver the peace for which the great majority of people in Northern Ireland long, but I believe that the present agreement will make an important contribution. It maintains and confirms the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and recognises the legitimacy of the Unionist position. It provides for co-operation in the intergovernmental conference to be a two-way street.
We shall wish to pursue matters affecting the Republic in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland—for instance, improved security and economic co-operation. It encourages the political parties in Northern Ireland to reach agreement on an acceptable form of devolved government. It offers hope to all those in both communities who want to defeat the men of violence and to work together peacefully for a better future for their children. That is the purpose of the agreement. It is in that spirit that I commend it to the House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I first express the Opposition's hope that the Anglo-Irish summit succeeds in its intention of promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland? We wish the initiative well.
Is the Prime Minister aware that we regard two of the principles on which the agreement is based as especially important? These are, first, the reassertion by the Dublin Government of their acceptance that a change in Northern Ireland status could not come about without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and, secondly, the acknowledgement by the British Government of what was described in a previous summit as the all-Irish dimension.
Against that background of general welcome, I ask the Prime Minister four specific questions. The right hon. Lady said that the intergovernmental conference may put forward views and proposals on certain aspects of Northern Ireland affairs. What are the subjects which have been agreed as unsuitable for discussion by that body? Secondly, is the intergovernmental conference to discuss plans for possible devolution before the Government consider putting them to the House, or is that essentially constitutional issue regarded as the prerogative solely of the United Kingdom?
Thirdly, there have been many reports since Friday of the United States proposing or offering governmental assistance to Northern Ireland. [Hon. Members: "Bribe."] May we be told what the facts are on these matters? Fourthly, the newspapers since Friday have referred constantly to promises by the United States Government to provide various forms of grant for use in Northern Ireland. Are these promises fact? If so, what form will the grants take?
Fifthly, I gladly acknowledge that the Ulster Defence Regiment was created as a non-sectarian force to inspire the confidence of all Northern Ireland, but sadly that is no


longer the position. Have any decisions been taken, or assurances given, about the future role and the entire operation of the UDR?
Finally, no one suggests that the agreement is without its faults—no such agreement could be—but, in our view, it offers some hope for the people of Northern Ireland; it is for that reason that we wish it well.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his general approach and for the good wishes that he has expressed to the purposes behind the agreement. The right hon. Gentleman asked four questions. First, he asked what subjects were regarded as not suitable for the conference. The subjects that are regarded as suitable are set out in the agreement itself. They are clear. Article 2 says that the conference shall
deal … on a regular basis with … political matters … security and related matters … legal matters, including the administration of justice … the promotion of cross-border cooperation
and certain other matters such as economic and cultural matters referred to in the agreement. The subjects that are suitable are set out in the agreement rather than the subjects which are not suitable.
The right hon. Gentleman's second question referred to decisions relating to devolved government. It is of course for the United Kingdom to approach the constitutional parties about devolved government. It is for the Republic of Ireland to put forward views in the conference about that matter. However, decisions north of the border rest with the United Kingdom Government.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned promises and grants from the United States. It has been suggested that the United States should provide moneys to assist both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I do not know any more than has been published.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Oh!

The Prime Minister: We believe that some money will be forthcoming, but I do not know the amount or in what form it will be.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Ulster Defence Regiment. I congratulate the Ulster Defence Regiment upon its most excellent record. There are no changes in its structure. The matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is dealt with in paragraph 8 of the communiqué, which states:
In addressing the improvement of relations between the security forces and the minority community, the Conference at its first meeting will consider
(a) the application of the principle that the Armed Forces (which include the Ulster Defence Regiment) operate only in support of the civil power, with the particular objective of ensuring as rapidly as possible that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, there is a police presence in all operations which involve direct contact with the community.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend, who has proclaimed herself rock firm for the Union and reaffirmed her Unionism at Hillsborough castle, assure the House that the agreement, whether in terms of is wording or in fact, gives Dublin no veto in the exercise of executive authority in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: That is correct. Decisions north of the border are for the United Kingdom. Decisions south of the border are for the Republic. The Republic has no veto in decisions north of the border.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Prime Minister aware that instructions have been given for leave

to be sought forthwith to apply for the judicial review of a number of the issues which the agreement raises? I understand that the initial steps in court are likely to take place within the next 48 hours. I look to the Government not to proceed with any action in implementation of the agreement until their legal right to do so is clarified.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman the answer which he seeks off the cuff. I believe that we are right to go ahead with debating the agreement next week and putting forward a motion that the agreement has the approval of the House. That is our intention.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister agree that, while it is always easier to destroy than to create, nowhere is that more true than in the history of Northern Ireland? Will she accept from these Benches support on the basis that this creative step is preferable to the status quo of bitterness, division and bloodshed? Will she further agree that those who are not prepared to accept the decisions of this sovereign Parliament, as they apply to that part of the United Kingdom, should cease to arrogate unto themselves the title of moralist?

The Prime Minister: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's constructive approach in support of the agreement. It is designed to mobilise men and women of good will everywhere against the men of violence so that there may be peace and stability in Northern Ireland, against a background where the Republic of Ireland recognises the legitimacy of the Unionist case and the fact that the status of Northern Ireland cannot be changed without consent.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It will come as no surprise to the right hon. Lady to hear that I shall not be commending this document of treachery and deceit to the House. As the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic arrived home from Hillsborough castle it was widely publicised on television, radio and in the press that he said:
In future, the Ulster Defence Regiment will operate differently from the way in which it has operated for the last 12 years. That means that from now on the present position under which the Ulster Defence Regiment can stop people on the road, search them and question them will no longer operate.
He also said something which affects the sovereignty of this House over a regiment of the British army:
The question of how security should be organised in Northern Ireland is one for the new intergovernmental conference.
In view of the fact that the people who live on the border in Northern Ireland get no defence from anybody but the Ulster Defence Regiment, what will they do in these circumstances, and why should a Prime Minister of a foreign republic have a say in the government and direction of a British Army regiment?

The Prime Minister: I pay tribute once again to the bravery and courage of the men and women of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I repeat that under the agreement the Governments of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland may raise with one another matters of security: we with them about certain matters south of the border and they with us about matters north of the border. Decisions north of the border will remain with the United Kingdom. Decisions south of the border will remain with the Republic. For many years, the policy of Her Majesty's


Government has been that the armed forces should operate in aid of the civil power. We have been trying to make arrangements progressively to bring that into effect. The only difference about the Ulster Defence Regiment relates not to the agreement itself but to the particular matter which I read out from the communique. It says that the conference will consider the objective of ensuring
as rapidly as possible that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, there is a police presence in all operations which involve direct contact with the community.
That is in pursuance of the general policy that in a democracy the armed forces act in aid of the civil power.

Mr. John Hume: Does the Prime Minister agree that a great deal will depend upon the implementation of the agreement? Can she assure the House that it will be implemented in the same spirit of good faith as was evident on Friday between the two Prime Ministers? Despite the ill-judged and prejudged reaction from certain quarters, my party believes that this agreement is an opportunity to make progress towards peace and reconciliation. We shall offer our fullest cooperation to the new institution. That includes willingness to enter into discussion and dialogue with anybody in Northern Ireland, particularly those who represent Northern Ireland, in this House, about any matter that will lead to peace and reconciliation, including the sharing of responsibility for certain matters in Northern Ireland. Recognition of the validity of both traditions, which was explicit in this agreement, is the only true basis for reconciliation. My party and those who support me do not believe that there will be any resolution of the conflict in Northern Ireland which involves in any way the crushing or the defeat of the Protestant heritage there. Not only would that be unthinkable; it would be impossible.

The Prime Minister: May I most warmly thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said? I believe that his constructive contribution will help greatly to defeat the men of violence and to bring peace and stability to both traditions in Northern Ireland. Whenever there is a change, obviously hopes and fears are raised on both sides. It is for us in this House and those who take the lead in all communities in Northern Ireland to quell those fears and to bring forward those hopes so that we may move forward to the peace and stability that we all want.

Mr. Ian Gow: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in these coming months, and whatever view we take about the Anglo-Irish agreement, restraint in public utterance will assist, and intemperate and inflammatory public utterance will injure the true cause of Ulster?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that charges of treachery levelled against her, whether within or without this House, are resented deeply by me and will be repudiated totally by me?

The Prime Minister: I warmly agree with my hon. Friend about restraint in public utterance. His objectives for peace and stability and for defeating the men of violence are the same as mine. I am very grateful to him for what he said in the latter part of his question.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: No one who has had any responsibility for Ulster—for Northern

Ireland—could do aught else than wish the Government well in their endeavours. I was especially pleased to hear the words of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume).
Is the right hon. Lady aware that I regret the reports in the weekend newspapers that, in the light of the response of the Unionists, there is talk of sending 9,000 soldiers and two battalions of paras—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] I am referring to what has been reported.
I have noted that, unlike in 1974, the Unionists on these Benches have not had any truck with paramilitaries and are not talking about an Ulster workers' strike. They are talking about standing again for election and of going to the High Court. At least in the short run, we should give them credit for that. We must fight their arguments, if that is necessary, with the spoken word and not with threats, because that would be counter-productive to Northern Ireland.
The crisis is likely to come next year. If the Ulster Unionists win through overwhelmingly in their communities, the Orange card will no longer be able to be played over here—the Orange card will no longer be a trump card. I simply say to the Government that it is about that time that they should be thinking, because it is my view that the union is at risk not from this part of the United Kingdom but from within Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter of that report. I know of no such plans as those referred to in that report, and we have issued a statement from No. 10 Downing street to that effect. I do not see any need to increase the security forces in Northern Ireland as a result of the agreement. I hope that any views that are to be put will be put in the customary way, through representatives in this House or through representatives in the Assembly or elsewhere in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make that clear.

Sir Peter Blaker: Should not those who are most vocal in their wish that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom bear in mind the fact that it follows logically from their position that the acceptability of this agreement is a matter for the United Kingdom as a whole, and that the United Kingdom will warmly applaud the agreement and wish it success?

The Prime Minister: Yes, my right hon. Friend is correct. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so unless the majority wish the contrary and the House endorses their wish. Decisions are a matter for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I join in expressing the hope that this agreement assists the process of peace and security. Is it the Prime Minister's intention to table a motion and allow a free vote on the proposal that there should be an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his question. There will be a motion, subject to the approval of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. We hope to have a debate next week and we shall table a motion to approve the agreement. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he wishes to receive on the voting. The parliamentary tier is a matter for the House and for the Dail.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the prospect of additional American investment in Northern Ireland could be useful, provided that it is properly targeted, by far the best hope for the security and prosperity of Ulster and for its marvellously skilled work force would be if efforts could be mounted to ensure that the agreement is built upon and not undermined and eroded by pointless unrest?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I understand that it is the intention of the United States of America to put up some money to help peace and stability in Northern Ireland and for inward investment. I do not know how much or what form it would take, but it would be tragic if there were to be internal unrest, because that would put back the cause of peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the prime challenge to this agreement may not arise from the customary threat, nor even from great expectations about improved security, but from the response of the indigenous nationalist community? Is she further aware that, if the agreement does not provide some evidence or even offer a glimpse of a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of Northern Ireland, and of movement towards its legitimate unity aspirations, the right hon. Lady will not achieve her principal objective of defeating Sinn Fein, whatever role she accords Dublin?

The Prime Minister: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The agreement refers to the possibility of devolved government on a basis acceptable to both communities. If that could be provided, the matters that are within the scope of the intergovernmental conference would leave the scope of the conference and be dealt with by devolved Government. That offers some hope, and the fact that we are mobilising all people who are against violence to fight it offers hope to all the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that one day we may even get the hon. Gentleman to come round more to our view.

Sir Edward Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who may feel uneasy about some aspects of this agreement would have felt very much more uneasy if my right hon. Friend had not succeeded in reaching this agreement?

The Prime Minister: I recognise that not everyone can agree with every part of the agreement, but most people support its general purpose and wish it well.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Prime Minister be completely candid with the House and the public about what is contemplated in the context of the administration of justice, especially in view of the discussions that have taken place on the operation of mixed courts in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The agreement shows that we have agreed in good faith to consider the possibility of mixed courts. We are considering that possibility without commitment, because we know from experience the difficulties and we cannot yet see our way around them. We are considering the possibility without commitment.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend has consistently argued that, despite the Republic's claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland, it has no right

to intervene in the domestic affairs of this kingdom. Now, she proposes to give it a legally enforceable right to do so—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in clear breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitutional guarantee to Northern Ireland. Why has my right hon. Friend abandoned her Unionist principles?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have not. The intergovernmental conference is about the Republic putting forward its proposals and views within the context of that conference. Article 2 makes it clear that
There is no derogation from the sovereignty of either the United Kingdom Government or the Irish Government, and each retains responsibility for the decisions and administration of Government within its own jurisdiction.
Thus, the undertaking I gave after the Chequers conference that there would not be a united Ireland, joint sovereignty or joint authority has been fully honoured and upheld.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Prime Minister accept that on Merseyside, in Liverpool and in my constituency of Bootle, where I represent second, third and fourth generation Irish people, sectarian conflicts and violence have been removed and conquered? Conflict existed in full force as a reflection of what happened in Ireland many years ago, but it has now been killed. That was achieved because the Catholic minority on Merseyside did not face an Ulster Defence Regiment or a police force that is seen to be sectarian. It was achieved because the Catholics of Liverpool and Bootle had the same civil liberties as the Protestant majority—

Sir John Biggs-Davison: And the same Parliament.

Mr. Roberts: Yes, and the same Parliament.
It was achieved because a climate of good will and tolerance was created in the Orange and Catholic communities. Although the Irish people whom I represent do not want a return to sectarian conflict in Merseyside, they believe that the problems of Northern Ireland will not be solved until Ireland is unified.

The Prime Minister: The latter part of what the hon. Gentleman said is not helpful in any way. It will only arouse fears in people who are the majority in Northern Ireland—fears which do not arise from the agreement. For the first time, the Republic has recognised the legitimacy of the Unionist cause and the fact that Northern Ireland shall retain its present status because the majority wishes that to be so, and that that will be the case until the majority changes. Obviously, we must work with both communities. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Unionist document "The Way Forward" recognises some of the hopes and fears of both communities. It states:
It is the responsibility of the majority to persuade the minority that the Province is also theirs.

Mr. Adam Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most welcome part of her statement is the reference to the priority which the conference will give to co-operation in security matters? Achievement in that area is the best way to gain support from both communities for the work of the conference. Does my right hen. Friend agree that no one should assume that the agreement is a preliminary to a united Ireland and that the conference and the Government should have an open mind to the many possible solutions? Would my right hon. Friend confirm that a united Ireland is not the aim of her Government?

The Prime Minister: Most certainly. Article 1 of the agreement states:
The two Governments
(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
That has been signed by both Governments. The agreement should add to the confidence of Northen Ireland Unionists.

Mr. William Ross: If the Irish Republic is a friendly state, why was it necessary for the Government to sell out on the sovereignty of Northern Ireland to obtain co-operation against terrorism? Should not co-operation against terrorism be given as of right by any friendly neighbour?

The Prime Minister: We hope that the agreement will enhance co-operation against terrorism by mobilising from the nationalist community in Northern Ireland the support of all those who are against violence, and that cross-border support will be enhanced through the increased cooperation that the agreement affords. That would be to the advantage of all the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: To what extent is the Prime Minister's word her bond? Does she recall that in November 1984 she signed a communiqúe with the same viper that she took to her breast in Hillsborough castle? In that communiqúe, she promised that any political structures or processes affecting Northern Ireland would have to be acceptable to both sections of the community. What test of acceptability does the Prime Minister intend to use? Has she the least appreciation of the deep sense of betrayal felt by the people of Northern Ireland at this act of political prostitution?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately trying to work up fears when he should be doing everything to allay them if he really wished to defeat the violence that afflicts Northern Ireland. The acceptability to which he referred related to devolved government, which would have to be broadly acceptable to both sides of the community. That would be a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland after discussions with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. After what the hon. Gentleman has rather scandalously said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I must repeat the agreement:
The two Governments

(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;
(b) recognise that the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland."
That is the best guarantee from the Republic that the people of Northern Ireland have ever had.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is a difference between treachery and treason? Does she accept that, since it is absolutely necessary to arrive at a reasonable solution to the problems of Northern Ireland, no method of arriving at the solution should be neglected, including assistance arising from our special relationship with the Americans?

The Prime Minister: I understand that it is the wish of the United States Administration to give some help. I do not know how much or what form it would take. We gladly accept their good wishes and we are grateful for the

way in which they have tried to stop any help going to Noraid, because that would go to the men of violence. We gladly accept their help.

Mr. Michael Mates: I warmly commend the Government for this initiative, which offers something to all parts of the community in Northern Ireland, except the extremists and the men of violence. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about article 12, which deals with inter-parliamentary relations? If there are to be regular formal meetings between Ministers, is there anything that those outside the two Governments might offer in a more formal structure than we have? My right hon. Friend says that she would accede to the wishes of Parliament in this. How does she think that those wishes might be made manifest?

The Prime Minister: Whether there should be an inter-parliamentary arrangement is a matter for both Parliaments. If a wish is expressed, through the usual channels or through my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, for such an arrangement, we, the Government, would support it.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the Prime Minister aware that all those Protestants who have in the past been in favour of a united Ireland have not actually adhered to the Orange banner—I refer, for example, to people such as Robert Emmet, Lord Edward Fitzgerald and Wolfe Tone—and that there is another tradition, a Protestant tradition, in Ireland that believes that Ireland has a right to a united country? Having said that, is the right hon. Lady aware that, while many of us want this to be a success, we have reservations because we are concerned that there may be not only a Protestant backlash but, equally, a backlash from people who fear, even at this stage, that they are not getting a proper deal in relation to this agreement?

The Prime Minister: The agreement recognises that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland except with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. Anyone who is trying to undermine that is only trying to raise fears which do not exist. This is the first time that we have had a recognition of that in writing from the Republic of Ireland, and that is valuable in calming the fears of the Unionists and reassuring them that change would come about only by the will of the majority in Northern Ireland.

Mr. W. Benyon: While I warmly congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the agreement, is it not a fact that one party to the agreement always seems to be left out of account, and that is the British people as a whole? They will not take kindly to people who seek to frustrate the will of this Parliament yet who call themselves loyalists.

The Prime Minister: Everyone in Northern Ireland who detests violence has a duty to try to make the agreement work, in loyalty to and recognition of those who regularly risk their lives in defending our freedom in the Province.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Prime Minister agree that, despite the drama of recent days, there is nothing very much in the agreement that takes us beyond the status quo, apart from formalising the links that exist between Dublin and London? Despite that, we have seen an intransigent and unreasonable outburst


from the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland. Does the right hon. Lady feel that the time has come for the British Government to take more heed of the views of the people of Britain and all the people of Ireland and begin the process of bringing about the reunification of Ireland and the withdrawal —[Interruption.]— which is what the majority of people want?

The Prime Minister: No. Nor do I believe that such a statement is helpful in any way to getting the agreement accepted. I recognise both the hopes and fears of people in Northern Ireland. In a democracy, the majority in Northern Ireland should have the say, and the agreement says that the status of Northern Ireland will not be changed except with the consent of the majority. That gives a good deal of assurance to those who are in the majority and who wish the Union to remain, as I do.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is it true that the American Administration put great pressure on Her Majesty's Government to enter into this agreement? If it is true, would it not have been better to tell our American friends that matters concerning Northern Ireland are no business of theirs, to have thanked them for their offer of money but asked them to mind their own business?

The Prime Minister: No, it is not true. Naturally, when we began these negotiations, I told the United States Government that we were negotiating. I have had occasion many times to criticise those in the United States who contribute to Noraid and to ask for the help of the United States Government and her leading citizens to prevent those contributions, because they go to men of violence. They have always tried to assist us in stopping contributions to the men of violence. Yes, I believe that they wanted an agreement and I told them that we were negotiating, but at no stage did they put pressure on us.

Mr. Harold McCusker: I never knew what desolation felt like until I read this agreement last Friday afternoon. Does the Prime Minister realise that, when she carries the agreement through the House, she will have ensured that I shall carry to my grave with ignominy the sense of the injustice that I have done to my constituents down the years— when, in their darkest hours, I exhorted them to put their trust in this British House of Commons which one day would honour its fundamental obligation to them to treat them as equal British citizens? Is not the reality of this agreement that they will now be Irish-British hybrids and that every aspect—not just some aspects—of their lives will be open to the influence of those who have harboured their murderers and coveted their land? Is the Prime Minister aware that that is too high a price for me and hundreds of thousands of others in Northern Ireland to pay?

The Prime Minister: No. The status of Northern Ireland cannot be changed unless the majority so wish. The hon. Gentleman chooses to ignore that, although it is one of the best assurances that he could have. The agreement also makes it clear that there is no derogation from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Government or the Irish Government. Each retains responsibility for the decisions and administration of government with their own jurisdiction. The hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members are trying to undermine that. They cannot; it is in the agreement and is a cardinal point of it.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the Prime Minister tell the House and the people of Northern Ireland what is the legal status of Northern Ireland in the eyes of the Irish Republic? Does she know that in a Deny newspaper today it is reported that one document that was signed by the right hon. Lady at the Hillsborough summit recognises Dr. Garret FitzGerald as the Prime Minister of Ireland? [Interruption.] The document is in the hands of the right hon. Lady. In response to a question about that, a Northern Ireland Office spokesman said:
The references to the Governments are the same as has been followed in a variety of agreements between them for almost 20 years.
The Stormont spokesman added:
Eire does not recognise the constitutional position of Northern Ireland.
That was an official statement from Stormont. On behalf of my constituents, I have a right to ask my Prime Minister, is she in agreement with that, or will she hold a ballot of the people of Northern Ireland and let them give their answer on the agreement?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is working himself up. [Interruption.] Equally the Taoiseach recognised me as the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it was in that capacity that I signed the agreement.

Rev. William McCrea: There is a difference.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a practice that has existed with regard to all agreements since April 1946. There are two descriptions, and one is as he described it, but there has been no change in that practice since 1946 and I have not heard him raise this point before, though he could have done so many times.

Mr. John Ryman: To what does the reference to aspects of the criminal law being harmonised refer in article 8? What does the phrase "mixed courts" mean and what offences are contemplated in article 8 as being likely to be tried by mixed courts?

The Prime Minister: I am not going to put a gloss on any words in the agreement. There would only be difficulty if we attempted to do so. I have already answered the question about mixed courts. We say without any commitment that we shall consider the possibility of mixed courts, but in considering that possibility we are aware of the many difficulties that have arisen when it has been considered previously.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of people—certainly those on the mainland of the United Kingdom—will judge the validity of the Hillsborough agreement not so much by finer points of sovereignty as by simple facts: will the terrible killings and woundings in Northern Ireland decrease and, above all, will less be asked of British troops?

The Prime Minister: The purpose of the agreement is to mobilise the help of all the people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic who detest violence and reject it, as a way forward in order to defeat the men of violence. Our purpose is to achieve exactly the end which my hon. Friend has described.

Rev. Martin Smyth: You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on Thursday I asked the Leader of the House whether one of his right hon. Friends


would tell the House today the basis on which, in the light of history, the Government built their confidence that any agreement would be kept and the change that will come about in the relationship with the Republic on recognition of the status of Northern Ireland?
I have listened intently to the Prime Minister's responses. No light has yet been thrown on my questions. The right hon. Lady says that this is the first time the status has been recognised in international law, but I would correct her, because we were so recognised in 1925. We have constantly been recognised as a fact of life and not de jure. There has been absolutely no change in that position. In this agreement, we have given the Government of the Republic a place to which they are not entitled.
The Prime Minister said that the status has been recognised and that the people's place has been protected. Why does article 1 state that a formal change would take place if the people of Northern Ireland decided that they wanted a United Ireland? They want something else. I ask the right hon. Lady to bear in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) assured us not that our Unionism would be protected but that our Protestantism might be respected?

The Prime Minister: I said in the statement that this was the most formal commitment to the principle of consent made by any Irish Government. The status of Northern Ireland in United Kingdom law is, of course, protected. I believe that this is the first time in a formal international agreement that the Republic has recognised this position in Northern Ireland and has recognised that it cannot be changed except with the consent of the majority.
Article 1 states:
The two Governments
(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
In a democracy the consent of the majority is required. Something else would also be required under our law—the consent of the House, and we should not—

Mr. McCusker: Oh, I see.

The Prime Minister: That is in our law as well. It is also a great protection for the Unionists in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the great majority of people on these islands, of which the Province forms but a part, greatly prefer a chance of reconciliation, which is wholly absent from the policies put forward by the representatives of the Ulster Protestant majority?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There is a chance for reconciliation, peace and stability, provided that all the people take that opportunity now.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: How can the Prime Minister reconcile article 9(a) about the right of the conference to
set in hand a programme of work
on aspects of security, including "operational resources" with article 9(b), which states:
The Conference shall have no operational responsibilities"?

Does not the right hon. Lady realise that this is a contradiction, in that the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State cannot retain their operational integrity while the resources fall within the bailiwick of the conference? Does not the right hon. Lady further realise that the RUC manpower and all the military personnel operating in support of the RUC are, in fact, "operational resources"? Does not she realise that she has effectively placed our armed forces under the direct influence of another Government?

The Prime Minister: That article is about cross-border co-operation. We can raise matters relating to cross-border cooperation with the Republic through this intergovernmental conference—
threat assessments, exchange of information, liaison structures, technical co-operation, training of personnel".
We can raise with the Republic matters affecting security because we both want to defeat the men of violence. The Government of the Republic can raise matters with us. Operations in Northern Ireland will come under our decisions and operations in the Republic under the Republic's decisions. This agreement is about cooperation. More co-operation is needed. It should be to the advantage of everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I hope that I shall not be accused of bias if I refer to a body with which I have some connection—the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government's last initiative on Northern Ireland is likely to be overlooked. It has been overlooked so far in these exchanges. The Northern Ireland Assembly was set up more than three years ago by the British Government to create peace and stability and to bring about reconciliation and progress in Northern Ireland. I should like the Prime Minister to confirm that the Assembly is a democratically elected body, that it is elected under proportional representation and that every elected representative is on an equal footing. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she continues to give it her full backing?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the Assembly was a democratically elected body. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we hoped that more parties would participate in these proceedings than has been the case. We shall have to consider this matter together with the article that considers further devolved government structures in Northern Ireland. We have taken no decision on the Assembly, so at the moment it continues.

Mr. James Nicholson: I represent a constituency that has suffered many atrocities in the past 16 years, many of which emanated from the Irish Republic. The right hon. Lady's remarks on Friday that we owe it to those who lost their lives to accept the agreement were highly offensive and totally insensitive. The families of those who lost their loved ones feel that they have been betrayed by the Prime Minister whom many of them may have trusted. Why should we accept the Prime Minister's solemn promises and assurances in the agreement when every other promise and assurance ever made by successive United Kingdom Governments have proved to be worthless and have succeeded only in bringing death and destruction? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] If Conservative Members think that this is funny, I assure them that people in Northern Ireland do not think so. The agreement will only bring death and destruction and more anarchy to Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that most people in Northern Ireland would honour the way in which the security forces have operated to protect them—whether the armed forces, the Ulster Defence Regiment or the Royal Ulster Constabulary under the aegis of the United Kingdom. I think we owe it to those young men and women who put their lives at risk in order to protect us to do everything we can to defeat the men of violence.

Rev. William McCrea: Visit their families and ask them.

The Prime Minister: I believe that most people in Northern Ireland would take that view.

Mr. Fred Silvester: Now that the Government have formally recognised the Republic's inevitable interest in the affairs of the Province, will the Prime Minister confirm that it is the view of the people taking part in the negotiations that the agreement will succeed to the extent that the minority and the Republic join in ensuring that terrorists are exposed and prosecuted openly and without stint.

The Prime Minister: I accept my hon. Friend's remark and will go a little wider. It requires the co-operation in the North of all people who are against violence and requires also heightened cross-border co-operation with the Republic. That is what I believe the agreement offers.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Contrary to the Government spokesman's misleading remarks, the Unionists did not comment on the agreement before reading it. I should like to assure hon. Members that I have read and re-read, as have my colleagues, the detail of the deceitful betrayal that is enshrined in the agreement. Will the Prime Minister inform the House that the agreement represents the end of the union as we have known it and that it represents the beginning of joint London-Dublin authority in Northern Ireland? Will she confirm that, when the Anglo-Irish conference meets, it plans to approve other matters which have already been agreed to, as stated by Maurice Manning TD, but which have been concealed from hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: There is no truth in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The agreement confirms the existence of the Union as long as that is the wish of the majority. That is diametrically opposed to the hon. Gentleman's comment. It also points out that, if devolved government on a basis acceptable to both traditions in Northern Ireland is established, the matters within the scope of the intergovernmental conference are thereby diminished as some matters would fall wholly within the responsibility of devolved government. It therefore gives hope not only for the continuation of the Union but that when devolved government occurs on that basis the intergovernmental conference will have less of a role.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As we have opposed with vigour and determination proposals for devolution for Scotland and Wales on the ground that they would inevitably lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, is it prudent to put forward such proposals in the even more complex and difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland? Secondly, will the Prime Minister tell us what a mixed court is?

The Prime Minister: The situation in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend is aware, is quite different from

that of Scotland, Wales or any other part of the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"' A mixed court, as I understand it, is one that would have a judge from the other part of Ireland; that would be reciprocal. There could be mixed courts in the North and in the South, if there were a decision to go ahead with them. I made it clear that we are bound to consider the possibility without commitment, because we are aware of the difficulties that would ensue if there were mixed courts. We do not see much possibility of that taking place in the near future.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Will the right hon. Lady confirm, or categorically deny, the assertion of the Irish Republic's Minister of Justice, Mr. Noonan? He said on American television at the weekend, that his Government's role
is substantial, not merely advisory. In effect the Irish Republic has been given a major and substantial role in the day-to-day running of Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: The agreement is there for all to see. I do not put a gloss on it. The words
There is no derogation from the sovereignty
are as clear as any in the agreement.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is it not the case, as shown in this historic agreement, which I welcome because it is necessary, that Northern Ireland suffers from political problems as well as terrorism, and that the local communities in Northern Ireland, and especially their leaders, for reasons both good and bad, have failed to resolve them?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the problems are also political, but the purpose of the agreement is to mobilise politicians from both sides against violence so that politics can be conducted in the usual way—in peace and stability.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is the Prime Minister aware that Unionist Members of Parliament were only given a copy of the document some hours after its release to the press? Does the Prime Minister expect the Unionist people to believe that the ambiguities and contradictions that are framed in the document will not be accepted? Does she also realise that the various articles enshrined in the agreement suggest a coalition rather than a consultative role for the Irish Republic?

The Prime Minister: That is precisely what the agreement does not do. I believe that, in trying to give that interpretation, the hon. Gentleman is needlessly arousing fears. Let me make it clear that the agreement affirms
that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
The agreement confirms that there is no derogation of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and that decision making north of the border is for the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put that about among Unionists and loyalists in Northern Ireland and Unionists and loyalists in this country—of whom I am one.

Mr. Tony Marlow: While I support the intentions of the agreement, inasmuch as it is proper or possible for an Englishman to pass judgment, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the document changes the status of Northern Ireland by allowing the Irish Republic to have greater influence over the affairs in the North? As this is a good agreement, and as undoubtedly the people of Northern Ireland will see it as a good


agreement, would it not be sensible and helpful to allow the people of Northern Ireland to have a referendum? We criticised Arthur Scargill for not having a ballot, and it would strengthen our position if there were a referendum.

The Prime Minister: It would not do any good, and we have no intention of having a referendum. I believe that for Unionists the agreement gives the assurance of no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority; it gives the prospect of increased co-operation with the south; it gives the prospect of support for devolution from both Governments, and it offers the prospect that the Republic will accede to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. That is good for all Unionists in Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Crouch: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the imaginative and courageous step that the agreement represents. I further remind her that the issue of peace in Northern Ireland is not just a matter of concern for the representatives of the people from Northern Ireland. In this Parliament, we are all concerned for peace and a settlement in Northern Ireland. We are ready to hear those representatives. Let them fight their cause and argue their case. We can well hear them. This is a matter for the whole Parliament.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The status of Northern Ireland is protected in an Act passed by this whole Parliament. The success of the agreement will mean that we expect all of those in Northern Ireland who hate violence to work together in the spirit of the agreement.

Okehampton Bypass Bill (Mr. Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Last Thursday the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) raised a point of order questioning the procedure being followed on the Okehampton Bypass (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, which will come before the House tomorrow. The procedure under which the House deals with a Bill to confirm a special procedure order is laid down in section 6 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedures) Act 1945. In the circumstances of this particular Bill, section 6 provides that the Bill is to proceed directly to its consideration stage followed by Third Reading. I have no power to vary this statutory procedure.
I have looked carefully at the particular point raised by the hon. Member, that, since the orders which the Bill is to confirm were before Parliament in the last Session, a resolution of the House to authorise the carrying over of the Orders from last Session to this one was necessary. I am, however, satisfied that there is nothing in the 1945 Act to prevent the House from proceeding with a Bill to confirm a special procedure order where such an order was before the House in a previous Session.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Anglo-Irish agreement and the fact that the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic affirms that that agreement provides that the question of how security should be organised in Northern Ireland is one for the conference, thus destroying the sovereignty of this House over security in part of Her Majesty's dominions.
I have been asked to say whether the matter is specific. It is. The Prime Minister of the Irish Republic is on record on television, on radio and in the press. When he arrived back from the Hillsborough summit he said that in future the Ulster Defence Regiment will operate differently from the way in which it has operated over the last 12 years.
That means,
said Dr. FitzGerald,
that from now on, as soon as this can be put into effect, the position at present, whereby the Ulster Defence Regiment can hold people up on the road, stop them, search them, and question them will no longer operate.
Therefore, it is specific.
Is it important to the people who sit in comfort in this House? It is of the utmost importance to those on the border in Northern Ireland, who never see a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and whose only defence is the Ulster Defence Regiment. Hon. Members talk about representatives from Ulster being stirred up. Last night I sat in a home where a father and mother were mourning their young boy who was assassinated by the IRA because he was a member of the security forces. It is important that the border in Northern Ireland be given proper defence.
Is it urgent? There is nothing more urgent than the lives of the citizens of Northern Ireland. Today, tomorrow and the next day the Dail will be discussing the affairs of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Members of this House, the only place where we can put our views to the Government, are denied the right of instant debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the statement by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic that the question of how security should be organised is one for the conference, thus destroying the sovereignty of this House over security in part of the United Kingdom.
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter he has raised meets all the criteria laid down in the Standing Order and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Singleton Hospital, Swansea

Mr. Alan Williams: Standing Order No. 10 requires that a matter be brought to the House at the earliest possible moment. I therefore apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to colleagues throughout the House, for raising this subject on so important a day, but I must ask the leave of the House to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that needs urgent consideration.
The question is self-evidently specific, because it deals with Friday's decision to close, next weekend, the casualty unit at Singleton hospital in Swansea. I rise on this matter today because, as you may recollect, Mr. Speaker—you were in the Chair—the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts), in answer to my Adjournment debate last Thursday night, said he rejected the proposition from the West Glamorgan health authority that this unit should close. Like myself, he condemned the health authority for its inadequate consultation and for its eventual decision that there should be no recognition of the proposal on which it had been consulting over a period of 10 years.
The urgency arises because, despite the fact that as recently as Thursday evening the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave the Government's view, the following morning, 12 hours later, the West Glamorgan health authority announced that it intended to go ahead with the closure next weekend, on 24 November. More astonishingly, in view of what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in the House, it also claimed that the statement it issued had been cleared and approved by the Welsh Office. I have since established with the Welsh Office that that is accurate. It is important because it is intended to keep this essential facility for Swansea closed for possibly up to six months during the consultative period on a possible replacement.
I submit that this is a specific and urgent problem in that, having accepted that west Swansea and Gower need a casualty service, the Secretary of State is now endorsing a move to close the existing service this weekend and to allow up to six months before providing a replacement. I submit that this proposal is at the very least contradictory and at worst idiotic and irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure of Singleton hospital".
I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

National Coal Board

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
bribery by National Coal Board officials.
Those officials tried to woo certain trade union leaders in the National Union of Mineworkers into the Union of Democratic Miners. They were using taxpayers' money in the process. This matter is specific because on 9 November the deputy chairman of the National Coal Board, James Cowan, and Kevin Hunt, the industrial relations director, approached Jack Jones, the general secretary of the Leicestershire miners. By and large, the Leicestershire coalfield was not engaged in the 1984–85 strike.
During the course of the conversation, which took place at Blackpool at the National Coal Board brass band championships, Hunt and Cowan asked Jack Jones about leading his men into the Union of Democratic Miners and coming out of the National Union of Mineworkers. They said to him, "One of the ways in which we can facilitate this matter is by taking care of your pension, Jack, and making sure that we will provide you with a car in order to do your union business." That is bribery on a grand scale and it is strange that it comes at a time when the Government and the Coal Board are calling upon the National Union of Mineworkers to sign a document with the aim of improving efficiency in the coalfields so as to save money. Yet they are prepared to use money to try to smash the National Union of Mineworkers and to set up a bosses' union in Leicestershire.
It is specific because it is also alleged that the practice has already taken place in respect of other officials in other areas. It is a very urgent matter because bribery and treating, in the legal sense, constitutes a criminal act. Therefore, it is necessary for the House to debate the matter in full so that the appropriate action can be taken.
As you have not found time, Mr. Speaker, for the two other applications, I ask you to look very kindly at this one.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
bribery by National Coal Board officials.
I listened with great care to what the hon. Member said, but I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Government have presented this short Bill to the House to protect the interests of the ratepayer by strengthening local government law in a few important areas.
The present law was formulated in very different circumstances. It relied on the common acceptance of well-established conventions in local government—the convention that public funds should not be used for party political purposes and the principle that proper financial management was an essential responsibility of councillors and officers alike.
The traditional values of integrity and propriety hold good in the vast majority of councils, but in some authorities there are councillors who are determined to push the law to its limits—and even beyond—in pursuit of political confrontation. It is all too clear that they will not shrink from exploiting all the resources of our democratic institutions to promote their own political and personal ambitions.
The object of the Bill is to protect the interests of the electorate and of the ratepayer. The public are concerned about party political propaganda which has taken millions of pounds from the ratepayers' pockets. Equally, it is the Government's duty to stop the antics which only increase costs.
The main provisions of the Bill will not affect the day-to-day business of the vast majority of councils. Most authorities of all political persuasions conduct their business in an orderly and responsible manner, but a small number of councils have found the loopholes and marched through them. We must stop the abuses and provide new legal safeguards against the deplorable extravagances.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baker: I will give way later. I should first like to launch the ship and get it out to sea.
I was making the point that most councils behave in an orderly and responsible manner, but a small number of them have found the loopholes and marched through them. We must stop the abuses and provide new legal safeguards against those extravagances. Rates were never meant to fund the personal ego trips of a handful of councillors who use their spending power at local level to create a springboard to further their own political careers at national level.
I must re-emphasise that the Bill merely reinforces the conventional rules of good practice that are the norm in the overwhelming majority of local authorities across the country. We are clarifying what most people believe the position to be.
I should like to quote from a leader in the Financial Times. It is not every day that we get a leader in the


Financial Times congratulating us upon local government legislation. Therefore, the House will not blame me for drawing its attention to it. The report says:
It is unreasonable to expect ratepayers to foot the bill for such political brinkmanship. The only pity about Mr. Baker's Bill to force councils to set a rate by the start of the financial year is that it has become necessary to legislate for common sense.
That quotation brings me to the first clause of the Bill. Until recently, it would never have occurred to anyone that there might he a need to impose a statutory duty on councils to make a rate on or before the first day of the financial year. Councils behaved reasonably and sensibly. They accepted that it was in the interests of all parties—the council, its employees, the electors and ratepayers—to make a rate on time. But this year 30 councils decided to try to overturn Government policy by not setting a rate.
The councils hoped for a united front. In the end 13 of the 30 did not set a rate by 1 April. The united front had broken. After that date most councils got cold feet. It was supposed to be the great spring offensive. It petered out by Easter and came to a grinding halt by July. Militant generals in charge of that fiasco, hoping to die on a barricade, led their troops to an ignominious defeat in their own council chambers at the hands of moderates. That is why clause 1 is necessary.
If Opposition Members seek to say that clause 1 is not necessary, they will have to say why Scotland has managed to have the provision since 1973. If they find clause 1 so objectionable, why, when they were in power, did they not change the law relating to Scotland?

Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend knows, some local authorities are not reluctant to break the law. What is to happen to those local authorities which do not set a legal rate by 1 April?

Mr. Baker: In certain circumstances it may be physically impossible to set a rate, due to illness or something of that sort. Clause 1(3) allows for that, but I emphasise that that is not a let-out, and the obligation remains.
If a rate is made late deliberately, two consequences might follow. On application of an interested party, a court could require the council to fulfil the duty and could make an order of mandamus. In addition, the breach of duty would provide prima facie evidence of wilful misconduct, and the auditor, who is completely independent of the Government, might initiate action against the councillors for the recovery of any resulting loss of funds. It was the existence of a date—10 March—for the precepting authorities this year which led them to make their decisions by that date. It led to the celebrated and televised meeting of the GLC when it had to meet a date.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
I now turn to the second clause, which deals with publicity. In February this year my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) set up the Widdicombe inquiry into the conduct of local authority business. We asked the inquiry to consider as a matter of urgency the question of political publicity, and it published its interim report on the issue in August. I am grateful to the committee for having performed that part of its task so expeditiously.
The report confirmed that some councils were producing material of a partisan nature that was published more for political gain than as a means of informing the electorate. The report says:
In our view some of what has been done by certain local authorities goes beyond what should properly be done out of public funds. Some material we have seen is directly or indirectly party political, and some goes beyond what we consider to be the proper scope of local government advertising.
The committee went on to say:
Our general conclusion therefore is that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
The Widdicombe inquiry recognised that it was implicit in the present law that local authorities should not spend public money on party political matters, but it recommended that that implicit prohibition should be given statutory effect. The Government agree with that view.
I will remind the House of the nature of the material that we have seen funded by rates. The GLC's
Three out of four Londoners
poster has been plastered over London's bill boards and in national newspapers this year. In the national press alone, the GLC spent £104,000 on that advertisement. It would have paid for the concessionary fares for a year of over 1,700 pensioned and disabled Londoners.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baker: In a moment.
In Tribune in July, Ken Livingstone—do hon. Members remember him?—boasted:
The GLC has got more bill boards than any other advertiser in London and it has the best sites.
He went on to say:
We have done polling on a scale that the Labour party could not afford.
The GLC did not hesitate to suppress polls which showed support rapidly ebbing away from the GLC. The GLC has spent well over £10 million on political campaigning, and that money should have been returned to the people of London.

Mr. Banks: Will the Secretary of State say what particular group of pensioners or disabled people have not benefited from the GLC's concessionary fares? The expenditure by the GLC on advertising has not prevented it from spending money also on concessionary fares for pensioners. They all enjoy those fares in London. After the abolition of the GLC, those concessionary fares will be under threat.

Mr. Baker: The answer is no. That intervention is up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard. That money should have been spent on social needs, and he recognises that. The GLC has spent on bill boards, advertising, posters, hats, balloons and the rest of it to promote political causes. That is how money has been spent to serve the interests of Londoners.
The people of Liverpool have been deluged in a flood of political propaganda on the rates. It starts with the council's letter heading which blatantly states, "Liverpool —a Socialist Council". It published a leaflet this year saying, "Support Liverpool Labour Council." That was paid for by Liverpool ratepayers, many of whom are council workers, facing no pay this week due to Councillor Hatton's fixation with bringing down the Government.
The headline of the April edition of Liverpool News, a civic newspaper, said that there was the horrific prospect


of a 220 per cent. rate rise and a loss of 6,000 jobs. That was the view in April, yet in November what do we find? The report produced by four treasurers from Labour authorities concluded that a 15 per cent. rate increase plus other measures would balance Liverpool's budget. The people of Liverpool were deliberately misled by their militant council's propaganda.

Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for mentioning the grave situation in the city of Liverpool. If, at this late stage, the city council is moved or persuaded to act on the variety of options to balance its budget, would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to meet leaders of Liverpool city council to discuss its serious financial problems?

Mr. Baker: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the financial problems with which the city of Liverpool is now faced are the making of the Liverpool city council. I have made it clear to the council that it must discharge its legal responsibilities, but it shows no sign of doing so. The city council was sent the Stonefrost report, which included ways in which the books could be balanced. It was prompted by the general secretaries of the trade unions and, indeed, was supported by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). The councillors' refusal to examine or act upon these proposals is at the heart of Liverpool's problems. I shall see the councillors only if they discharge their legal responsibilities, balance the books and set a rate which matches expenditure.
I will see the councillors only when they act legally and responsibly to resolve the financial crisis in Liverpool this year. It is their responsibility to resolve the crisis.

Mr. Allan Roberts: If the city council balanced its budget and met the Secretary of State, would he discuss its capital programme and his predecessor's letter? The letter gave some undertaking to assist Liverpool with its capital and house building programmes.

Mr. Baker: When the city councillors restore themselves to legality, in line with others, we shall discuss other matters with them. I want to discuss with the councillors their vendetta against the co-operative housing movement, which has been waged with unremitting ferocity by the militant council, and the ways in which the private sector can assist with the housing problem in Liverpool. However, I emphasise what I said earlier—the crisis facing Liverpool is the making of Liverpool city council.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Leicester city council spent £594,200 between 1983 and 1985 on political poster advertising, including £67,000 on anti-rate capping, and that, this year, the council has budgeted for £377,300. Does he agree that this is a shocking abuse of ratepayers' money and why clause 2 is necessary and will be welcomed by the people of Leicester?

Mr. Baker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that Leicester city council has quite fruitlessly spent a great deal on a political campaign. Such money could have been better spent on social objectives in the city. As a result of the Rates Act 1984 we were able to secure a substantial reduction in the rates, which will help his constituents.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman said that Liverpool city council has not considered the Stonefrost report, but the Labour councillors have studied it in great depth. That they have concluded that it is of no help is a matter of opinion, but it is not right for the Minister to say that Liverpool city councillors have not studied the report when they have, and carefully.

Mr. Baker: That makes matters even worse. That report has been welcomed on all sides of the political spectrum. It offered several ways in which to balance the books. Its rejection shows an intransigence and a stubborness which cannot be in the interests of the people of Liverpool.

Mr. Wareing: When the Secretary of State dealt with clause 1, he remonstrated about the situation in Scotland since 1974. I remind him that, under the Labour Government, the rate was fixed in Scotland and, as with authorities in England and Wales, Scottish local authorities were able to levy a supplementary rate. The right to levy a supplementary rate was abolished by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, not by the Labour Government. Present circumstances are not similar to what happened under previous Governments. Far from being able to meet increases in expenditure, which often result from factors outside local authority control, the council now levies a supplementary rate. Will clause 2 outlaw the sort of propaganda which appeared in the Merseyside County Extra in April 1981?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak and lengthy interventions are made at the expense of other hon. Members who wish to speak. However, the Secretary of State might wish to reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has made a false point. At no stage did any of the 13 councils, which did not set a rate by 1 April this year, say they were delaying to set a supplementary rate. Nobody welcomes the reintroduction of powers to set supplementary rates. When the rates have been set at inadequate levels, as in Liverpool, the procedure is straightforward. Interested parties can go to the courts. There is an application at the moment by a trade union against the city of Liverpool for the rate to be quashed and another rate set.
I wish to proceed to clause 2 and subsequent clauses on propaganda. I was making the point that for London and Liverpool there was ample evidence of the misuse of ratepayers' money. That was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels).
Lambeth council has also indulged in a great deal of party political propaganda, on which it has spent £400,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has a flat or house in Lambeth, and earlier this year, in Committee, he was constantly telling us about the vast waste of money. Again, instead of spending £400,000 to improve refuge collection in Lambeth, it was spent on banners, stickers and the rest of it.
Haringey has spent £300,000 on press and publicity campaigning. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) is one of the representatives of that area. I can tell him that Councillor


Grant visited my Department last week to demand a blank cheque of taxpayers' money further to finance his council. There is no question that Haringey has deprived areas, but just imagine how many housing repairs on the Broadwater Farm estate that £300,000, which was spent on propaganda, would pay for.
We all view with disgust Councillor Grant's use of his council's publicity machine to spread his hostility towards the police, and I am astonished that the Labour party continues to endorse him as a parliamentary candidate.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall not give way to him again.
Then there is Islington. Councillor Margaret Hodge, chair of the Association of London Authorities and leader of Islington, has called the Bill "totalitarian and oppressive." I think opposition councillors in her area would use exactly that description of her propaganda campaign. Indeed, in a MORI poll commissioned by Islington council in January this year, most respondents felt that the council spent too much money on its anti-Government publicity campaign. The response of Councillor Hodge to that was that the council
still needs to do more to convince residents that we have their interests at heart.
In other words, more propaganda is needed. Therefore, it is no coincidence that in July this year Islington advertised for a chief press campaign and publicity officer at £19,000 a year. The advertisement stated:
Campaigning will be a major activity and flair and experience in this area will be very important.
The council had to advertise the vacancy because the previous head of Islington's propaganda department resigned after he and his staff had written to Councillor Hodge complaining that they had been asked to tell lies during the campaign.
I remind hon. Members who still doubt the need for action in this area that, in total, at least £20 million has been spent on political advertising and propaganda since this Parliament began.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Baker: I have already given way several times. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way again.
Clause 2(1) prohibits local authorities from publishing, or giving financial assistance to another person to publish, material designed to affect support for a political party or a body, cause or campaign identified with a political party. It sets out an objective test for authorities, and, in the case of challenge, for the auditor and the courts to use.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Baker: I regret that I shall not give way.
Clause 2(2) requires that in defining the scope of the prohibition one must have regard to whether the material specifically refers to a political party or to persons identified with a political party, or, if material is to be published as part of a campaign, to the effect that that campaign is designed to achieve. In other words, we are seeking to ensure that the law clearly recognises that material which might appear perfectly proper if taken in isolation could, in the context of a sustained campaign, clearly promote a broad party political message.

Mr. Robin Squire: I support the principle behind the legislation, and my concern is simple and specific. Will my right hon. Friend consider today, or in future, substituting a definition which considers the question of the content of the material that is being produced rather than its intent or effect? Both of those latter categories are much harder to measure, and many more cases will end up in the courts than would otherwise be the case.

Mr. Baker: The Widdicombe report dealt specifically with the tone and content of advertising, because often it is the tone and content which takes the particular advertisement over the top. We have enshrined the basic principles which the Widdicombe inquiry sought to achieve in clause 2, but later we allow for a code of conduct to be drawn up. I suspect that a code of conduct will be concerned with the tone and content of particular advertisements.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend has raised the question of a code of conduct, which is covered by clause 4. Is the code of conduct intended to have any consequences in law? If so, what are they? Will the code of conduct be brought before the House for our approval?

Mr. Baker: The answer to the latter point is yes. I propose to consult widely on the code with local authority associations and local government, and then to draw it up. I do not propose to go firm on the code until the Widdicombe inquiry has made final recommendations in the spring or summer of next year, because it has stated that it may have further comments on the code. I was envisaging a code somewhat similar to the Highway Code. However, I am prepared to consider what is the best way forward on this. A code of conduct against which councils can measure their attitude towards advertising and promotion is probably one of the best ways to proceed. There is no way that I shall slap a code down and say, "Take it or leave it", about which I think my hon. Friend is worried.
Clause 2(3) debars authorities from giving financial or other assistance to proxy organisations for the purpose of producing publicity material which would otherwise be prohibited by the clause.
I have no doubt that some Opposition Members are already dusting down their references to censorship. Those who oppose the measure are saying, "Let councils spend their money on political campaigns." I have no objection to political campaigning. All politicians indulge in political campaigning, but the costs should be borne by political parties, not ratepayers or taxpayers. The Bill will not interfere with any legitimate non-party based publicity activities. [Interruption.] As I understand it, the sale of council houses enjoys broad political support on both sides of the House. Therefore, it could not be considered to be party political. A distinction must be drawn between the legitimate dissemination of information on policy and functions and a party political diatribe at public expense.
Clause 3(1) amends the existing powers of local authorities to provide information under section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 88 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, making it clear that the power relates to the publication of material relating to services or to the functions of the authority. In the Government's view, that does no more than reflect more


accurately Parliament's original intentions in passing the 1972 and 1973 Acts. It is no part of the duty of local authorities to spend ratepayers' money on such wholly non-local matters as defence policy or foreign affairs.
As the Widdicombe inquiry recommended, clause 3(2) amends section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to stop local authorities from using those discretionary spending powers for publicity. But those powers are still available for assistance to voluntary organisations or public authorities where publicity is a necessary ancillary to their main activities.
Clause 4 enables me, in consultation with representative local government bodies, to issue codes of recommended practice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg and I have been discussing. It also requires authorities to have regard to a code. I welcome the initiative already taken by some of the professional organisations concerned in that area.
Clause 5 requires local authorities to keep a separate account of their expenditure on publicity, and makes the normal provisions for inspection of the account by members of the public. The Widdicombe inquiry found that many councils had no idea of their total spending on publicity. The clause should go some way to improve authorities' accountability in that area of public concern.
Part III deals with the transfer of local authority mortgages. Hon. Members will recall that on 23 July my right hon. Friend announced that the Government would legislate at the earliest possible opportunity to prevent local authorities from disposing of their interest in a mortgage without obtaining the borrower's consent. Clause 7 prohibits a local authority from disposing of its interest in a mortgage without the prior written consent of the borrower. The ordinary council borrower at present risks finding that the mortgage has been transferred without his having any say in the matter. That cannot be right. Subsections (5) and (6), of clause 7 enable me to make regulations to ensure that borrowers are told everything that they need to know when they are asked to consent to the sale of their mortgage.
Clause 8 provides that authorities will not gain a capital receipt from a mortgage sale unless the risk is transferred to the buyer. For certain housing mortgages, the consent provisions are retrospective to midnight on the day that my right hon. Friend made his announcement. These mortgages were specified in a letter sent by my Department to all local authorities on that day. For all other mortgages, the provision will apply to disposals on or after 1 April 1986.
Clause 10 remedies an inadvertent defect in the Local Government Act 1985 so that there is no doubt over the eligibility of members of ILEA and council members of joint authorities for attendance allowances.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Baker: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. Perhaps he can raise his point later.
This is a short Bill dealing with a small number of matters relating to local authority practice and which, but for recent developments in a small number of councils, I would not need to bring before the House today. By convention, most authorities do not use public funds for political publicity. As a matter of good practice they set

their rates before the beginning of the financial year. Any reasonable authority would seek each borrower's consent before selling his mortgage.
Unfortunately, the people of this country can no longer rely on the traditional conventions, nor on good administrative practice, to govern the decisions of some councils. Therefore, we need to strengthen the law in the interests of ratepayers and for the long-term benefit of local government as a whole.
Unlike many of the Left-wing councillors at the root of local government's current problems, I am in the business of strengthening accountability, thereby reinforcing our traditional democratic institutions at local level. This is one of the main reasons why the Government have asked the Widdicombe inquiry to consider in its main report whether the safeguards against abuse are adequate. Its task is complex and important and will no doubt have implications for the conduct of local authority business in this country at least to the end of the century. I look forward to receiving its report and recommendations early next year. In the meantime, the Bill deals with the matters that we believe to be of very great and immediate importance in the conduct of local authority affairs, and I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: This is the first parliamentary opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on his promotion to the Cabinet. It is a very important job, given the manifest problems faced by local authorities, the people who work in them and many communities throughout the country. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well, but given the experiences of his predecessor I fear the worst.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who had a long and honourable career in office within a number of different Departments, demonstrated an integrity, courtesy and ability, at least in personal terms, to work with Opposition spokesmen, despite our deep clashes over policy. I place on record my appreciation of those aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's work.
I never like beginning a speech with an apology, but I should explain that because of a long standing engagement—the sixth Hamptons lecture organised by the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers—I have to give a second speech this evening on the other side of London. I therefore hope the House will excuse me if I leave shortly after I have finished this speech, but I expect to be back in time to hear the conclusion of the debate.
The Secretary of State made a thin speech about a thick Bill. Predictably, this Conservative Government are taking the earliest possible opportunity in the new Session of Parliament to expand their attack on local democracy and freedoms. Yet again, we have a Local Government Bill, the twelfth since 1979, that will further restrict the free choice of all elected local councils from parish to county level—those of every kind of political control and those of no political control—to act in what they believe to be the best interests of the communities that elect them.
The proposals in the Bill again remove the judgment and discretion of elected authorities to speak out for their towns, cities, counties, districts or parishes and to oppose not just central Government but each other. The Bill


prevents advice being given and facts being made available to voluntary bodies, trade unions, charities and even the professions.
Frankly, this Bill disgusts me. It is a tawdry little measure. It assumes that, in a plural democratic society, an elected local authority is simply an agent of Government carrying out a set of functions and not, as we believe and as millions of people of all political persuasions have always believed, that councils are elected to speak for their communities—their areas—and their hopes, fears and aspirations.
The Bill also disgusts me because, in common with all its Conservative predecessors, it demeans local government, diminishes its ability to represent and drags it further into the control of the central Whitehall web. The Bill is nothing less than an attempt to gag local government, to silence opposition, to censor debate and seriously to reduce the free flow of argument and ideas. As it stands, it ensures that councils cannot even publish information on the welfare of their areas. Communities are apparently to be denied the means of self-expression. Even worse, it seems that campaigns in support of people dying or suffering malnutrition, disease and poverty in other countries such as Ethiopia will no longer be legal—to such depths have this Government sunk!

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Bill is a gag on freedom of expression. Is he really saying that it is proper for local authorities to use public money to make party political points and to wage a political, partisan campaign, because that is inherent in the argument he is now advancing?

Dr. Cunningham: The Americans would have a word for what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He is way ahead of himself. If only he had the patience and courtesy to wait until I had got further into my speech, he would know how fatuous that intervention is.

Mr. Richard Holt: Answer the question.

Dr. Cunningham: I shall come to the answer in a moment. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) should also keep his mouth shut for a little while.
Almost 200 years ago, in his inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson reminded the people that, although the will of the majority in a democracy would always prevail, to be rightful that will must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal right too, which equal law must protect; and that to violate such protection would be oppression. I am sorry that this Government continue to demonstrate that they are no respecter of such ideals.
This Conservative Government increasingly demonstrate that they cannot face up to the competition of ideas, argument and debate that are so essential in a healthy, free and robust democracy. Nor can we accept the way in which the Government have acted in fabricating a case for the main proposals in the Bill.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Member likes to criticise the Government. Perhaps he will comment on what the Labour party is doing with Liverpool's leaders.

Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's intervention has anything to do with what I was saying, but if he is in any doubt about the view taken by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Labour party and my colleagues and myself on the

Opposition Front Bench about the situation in Liverpool. I cannot understand where he has been for the past three or four weeks.
The Widdicombe inquiry was established to present an independent, dispassionate view of fundamentally important issues affecting the health of local democracy. The Government insisted, wrongly in our view, on an interim report. We asked why at the time: what was the rush? Why hurry matters of such importance? We now know the reason. They wished to bounce legislation through Parliament before next year's vital nationwide local government elections.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, when Secretary of State for the Environment, gave the impression more than once that he had prejudged the issue, and in doing so had compromised the inquiry. I deeply regret that the present Secretary of State for the Environment has been even worse in that respect. His comments at the Local Government Chronicle dinner at the Cafe Royal in October. and subsequently in the media, have seriously damaged the work of the Widdicombe inquiry—so much so that, now aware of the seriousness of his error, he is trying desperately to back-track and to re-establish the credibility of the inquiry. Mr. Widdicombe felt so angered that he wrote to the press to restate publicly his committee's independence from the views of the Conservative party.
The hasty publication of the Bill and the fact that its proposals ignore most of what, Widdicombe has to say on the matters at issue are further evidence of the Government's determination to enforce their own opinions regardless of the evidence. As with the Rates Act 1984 and the Act to abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC, the Bill lacks any sound principles or coherent arguments in its favour.

Dr. Keith Hampson: The hon. Gentleman insists that the Government are somehow flouting the rights of minorities and groups with views different from their own. We are faced with a load of propaganda for a certain viewpoint and not the even-handed distribution of money or the even-handed presentation of a case by councils. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that, but for the Bill he and the Labour party would be using existing powers to flood their councils and ratepayers with propaganda on the eve of the next election.

Dr. Cunningham: I reject the hon. Gentleman's argument, as I said no such thing. I shall come to some of the details of the arguments for and against what the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.
The Bill is a hotchpotch of disparate measures, badly drafted and hastily cobbled together. As it stands, it will be true to the Government's record because it will make very bad law. It brings together proposals on rating law, local government finance, publicity and information and allowances for members of new authorities. Part II demonstrates the Government's uncanny knack of uniting the whole of local government against them. From the National Association of Local Councils, representing over 11,000 parishes and town councils nationwide, through the districts, boroughs and counties, the condemnation of the Bill is unanimous.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations was cheated by the Government with false promises during the passage of the abolition Bill and was rightly angered by


the damaging changes in the administration of the traditional urban programme, which will destroy the work of many of its constituent members. The council has once again expressed its deep anxiety at the likely effect of this legislation on the ability of local authorities financially to assist voluntary organisations throughout Britain.
The council is right to be alarmed. In the Bill, the Government continue to undermine and damage the effectiveness of service provision by local authorities and voluntary organisations by savagely reducing funding for information and campaigns about service provisions. In part II, the Government seek to deny a long-established reality, that local government is a political institution. The Widdicombe committee recognised that reality and concluded that it was acceptable, in principle, for local authorities to publicise controversial matters, whether political or not.
The report argues in paragraph 122 that local authorities
have a long recognised and important contribution to make to political debate on matters concerning them.
It states in paragraph 123 that they are "intrinsically political". That has always been true of local government in Britain whatever political party has been in government. The Labour party shares the view expressed by the Widdicombe committee and it is astonishing to hear the Conservative party, and apparently other political parties such as the Liberal party and the SDP, deny its validity.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way.
The only distinction that the inquiry made was between material issued in the interests of a local authority and that issued in furtherance of a single political party. As a number of hon. Members have asked me about this in interventions, it is clear that they have not read the evidence that was presented to the Widdicombe committee, in which the Labour party made it clear that it does not support party political propaganda paid for by local authorities out of the rates. That is made clear in the evidence to the committee and I repeat it now. Conservative Members have demonstrated that they do not understand what is at stake.
What damns the Government as duplicitous is that the report does not identify a single example of an explicitly party political advertising campaign by a local authority. Widdicombe does not identify one, and it is quite wrong for the Secretary of State or Conservative Members to suggest otherwise.
Another major prop in the Tory campaign for these powers of censorship was knocked away when the inquiry reported that there was no substantial evidence of public concern. That was another fabrication which was being used to support the proposals contained in the Bill.
In addition, council spending on publicity constitutes a small amount of total spending. The report claims that expenditure on controversial issues of publicity forms "a very small part" of such spending. The committee went on to express the views that local authorities had a valuable contribution to make on policy matters wider than those strictly related to their statutory functions and that councils themselves should decide on the level of their publicity expenditure. It considered that local government publicity strengthened the democratic base and open government.
In contradiction to these views and conclusions, the Bill addresses five issues considered by the Widdicombe inquiry and in four of them either ignores or contradicts its findings. In addition, the drafting of the legislation is likely to create an administrative nightmare.
The Opposition have no objection in principle to clause 1. As the Secretary of State said, it brings the position of rate-making authorities in England into line with that of those in Scotland and the position for precepting authorities in England. The Opposition will have some detailed questions to raise in Committee.
Clause 2 is supposed to ban political publicity. There are three possible tests for such political publicity: the intentions of the authorities, the nature and the content of the publicity itself and the effects of the publicity. Widdicombe plumped for the nature and content test and recommended that
there should be an express statutory prohibition of local authority publicity of a party-political nature.
It is clear that such material is already illegal under general administrative law. All that Widdicombe asks for is a declaration of the existing law.
The Government have ignored the committee and gone for both the other tests—intention and effect. Clause 2 prohibits material if it
appears to be designed to affect, or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for … a political party, or… cause".
The second part of the clause 2 test is most damaging. The prohibition of material "likely to affect" support for a party is a subjective test which may effectively rule out any publicity on controversial issues.
Widdicombe repeatedly emphasises that councils should publicise their activities, including those which are controversial. Clearly, that is essential to democratic accountability. In paragraph 158, the Committee draws attention to the
very considerable value in greater communication by local government".
At present local authorities are empowered by section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 to publicise
matters relating to local government.
Widdicombe considers that section 142 is
an explicit recognition by Parliament—with which we would agree —that local authorities should be able to issue information on a broader range of issues than what is strictly necessary for their statutory functions.
That opinion appears in paragraph 135. The recommendation states:
the scope of local authorities' general powers to issue publicity should be as currently set out in section 142 (section 88 in Scotland)".
There is no solace in that. It is fundamental to local government in the United Kingdom that councils are not merely the local administrative agents of central Government. Widdicombe endorses that view. One of the report's five underlying principles is:
Local government is more than the sum of the particular services provided.
The Government have completely disregarded the committee's views.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman claims that we are disregarding or going beyond the Widdicombe recommendations. The critical clause in the report about party political material says:
We wish to rule out such practices as"—
and it lists four such practices, one of which is
publicity campaigns, the scale of which, given their political context, may have the effect of advancing the interests of a


particular party even though the subject matter is not overtly party political. An express prohibition of expenditure calculated to advance the interests of a political party could well have a moderating effect upon the scale and style of campaigns.
I do not think the hon. Gentleman's case is proven.

Dr. Cunningham: I am talking about Widdicombe's comments on what local authorities are empowered to do under section 142 of the 1972 Act, which was introduced by a Conservative Government. The Widdicombe report makes it clear that it sees a proper and legitimate role for local authorities in publicity. I say that the Government are disregarding the committee's views on that.
As part of its proposals for tidying up the legal powers, the committee recommends that section 137—containing the limited residual general power in the 1972 Act—should be amended to prevent authorities using it to finance publicity expenditure. Again, the Government have gone well beyond the report. Clause 3(2) would prevent any body funded under section 137 from issuing publicity unless the publicity was "incidental" to the main purpose of the body. That would stop the funding of voluntary organisations whose main aim often is publicity. For example, it might prevent the funding of an anti-drug campaign or anti-heroin publicity by voluntary organisations which were helped with their funding by a local authority.
In clause 4 the Government have decided to ignore the strongly expressed wish of the Widdicombe committee for a self-regulatory framework. Worse, they have pre-empted the decision to continue working on a solution to the problem.
I could continue with detailed criticisms of crucial parts of the Bill, but I think that I have made enough points to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government have gone well beyond the Widdicombe interim report.
It is suggested and believed without thought by some Conservatives that these issues affect or have involved only Labour councils. How wrong they are. Conservative councils have fought hard and often bitter publicity campaigns on issues such as selective education. I think of Tameside, for example. Such activities would be banned by the legislation. Voluntary Action Westminster, funded partly by Tory Westminster city council and led by Lady Shirley Porter, has published material on the impact of the GLC's abolition on voluntary bodies. That would be banned by the Bill.
Fair Play for Children, the president of which is Archbishop Trevor Huddleston and which is funded in part by local authorities, publishes newsletters on, among other matters, the impact of Government cuts on play facilities. Such expenditure would be banned under the Bill.
Likewise, Tyne and Wear metropolitan county's "Save our Shipyards" campaigns to save Gartcosh steelworks—supported across the party political spectrum in Scotland—and campaigns on transport policy will be banned by the Bill. Community voices around Britain will be silenced.
The same might be true of campaigns involving information and advice on welfare rights, on co-operation with the police, cervical smear tests, contraception and even council house sales.
Councils will in general be unable to fund activities in areas where they have no function. That is what the Bill provides. If the Minister claims that what I am saying is wrong and that he intends to amend the Bill in Committee

to make that clear, I shall be pleased. I hope that he will put that on the record, because it is not clear to the majority of legal opinion in local government.
Why is every local authority association opposed to the proposals? That is the acid test of the impact of the proposals on local authorities. I shall willingly give way to the Secretary of State if he intends to tell us that the Bill will be changed in Committee. He declines to intervene, and so concedes the argument that the catch-all provisions in clauses 2 and 3 will have that impact.
In addition, and ironically, Tory councils will not be able to finance campaigns for privatisation. Labour authorities will be unable to advise their electors why they oppose privatisation or even to publish their responses to a Green Paper.
Clause 2 will prevent publication of material critical of Government policy, while clause 3 forbids local authorities to publish material that is not directly related to their functions. Thus, councils of whatever political persuasion may not campaign against Government policy on wide-ranging issues such as nuclear waste disposal, the Channel tunnel or airport development unless they have specific functions related to them. That should make Conservative Members at least pause before they support these proposals as they stand.
What does "functions" in this context mean? It may be necessary for the Secretary of State for the Environment or for the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government to spell out in Committee in the minutest detail exactly what "functions" means in the context of this Bill, if these problems are to be Overcome. We need an answer. I hope that the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government will be able to give that answer when he responds to this debate. District councils, for example, may be unable to campaign against or publish information which opposes the proposals or activities of the county council which administers services in their area—for example, education, social services or refuse disposal. What now of parish or village opposition to school closures, or to the loss of bus services? What now of that Goliath of community politics, the Liberal party, which apparently intends to support the Second Reading of this Bill? I wonder what the Association of Liberal Councillors will make of that.
The Local Government Act 1972 makes provision for parish polls. A poll must be held on any question that is raised at a parish meeting, if at least 10, or one third, of those present demand it. According to the Bill, a parish council could not act to publicise or campaign on the result of such a poll if it were an issue that was unconnected with parish functions. That is a measure of exactly how ludicrous these proposals are.
Will local authorities be able to campaign and appear at public inquiries against afforestation or the siting by water authorities of reservoirs in their area? As the Bill stands, this is not clear. Would council campaigns in schools to help the police be allowed by authorities that have no police authority function? There are surely enough examples already to raise major doubts about the advisability of what the Government are asking the House to agree. Ironically, the Bill seeks to erode powers given to local authorities by a Conservative Government in their Local Government Act 1972. Whatever has happened to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? Has he at last been silenced, too?
When it is returned to office, the Labour party will not just repeal these measures; it will enhance local government freedom by enacting a general power and competence which will allow all local authorities to act in the best interests of their communities.
We see again, in part III, the all too familiar Government habit of retrospective legislation, this time over mortgage sales by councils. Again, too, the Government are enforcing duties upon councils which do not apply to building societies. This is another example of the lack of even-handedness in this Government's approach to local authorities, such is their desire to control all aspects of the use by councils of their capital receipts.
It will be clear from what I have said that the Labour party is completely opposed to the central provisions of the Bill. Again, it exemplifies the deeply centralist and authoritarian nature of a Government who have had a dangerously corrupting influence upon public administration in Britain. There is the appointment of people according to the "one of us" syndrome—the promotion of people only if they suit the Prime Minister's proclivities. I suppose that the Secretary of State for the Environment is an example of the exception breaking the rule. At least I hope he is, but perhaps that is not a helpful thing to say about him so early in his career as a Cabinet Minister. There have been attacks on the independence of the Civil Service and repeated acts by Ministers have subsequently been ruled unlawful by the courts.
This Bill contains what is, by any test, a massive censorship of local opinion. The Government are planning a silent political spring in 1986. Local councils and communities will be permanently gagged by a Government who spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on propaganda. They will be gagged just at the time when about 23 million voters will have the chance to vote in local government elections. What a remarkable coincidence.
The timing of the Bill and its proposed implementation date, above all else, give away the intentions of this frightened Government. Elsewhere in Whitehall, election bribes are in preparation, but the Department of the Environment is leading the attack to silence the debate. The Bill is without precedent. It is contemptible. The House should reject it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): We got off to a late start and I see that 30 to 40 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Therefore, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will try to make brief speeches.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: This is a sad little Bill. It would have been unnecessary in the days of Herbert Morrison, or the founder of the Silkin dynasty or Bob Thomas of Manchester or during the long local government career of the father of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). No Labour leader would then have indulged in the kind of activity that has led to the introduction of this legislation. I support strongly what the hon. Member for Copeland has just said. If the Bill will

prevent local authorities from spending money to promote privatisation, I shall be delighted, because that is not the function of local government.
In his closing remarks the hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the Bill was weak and that the courts had held that unlawful acts had been committed by Ministers. He will know that this applies to all Governments. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that Fred Mulley found himself on the wrong side of the courts on an education matter. The hon. Gentleman throws doubt upon the legal advice that is given to Ministers by their Departments under all Governments. This is happening far too often and needs to be examined very closely.
I welcome the Bill, as far as it goes. It is right for the House to accept that local government has a duty to administer Acts of Parliament as we pass them. I hope that this is not the last Local Government Bill that the Government will introduce. A clause needs to be added to the Bill making it clear beyond peradventure that it will be illegal for a local authority to spend money upon any function for which there is no statutory responsibility. This used to be the case before the local government law was changed. If one wanted to spend money for which there was no direct parliamentary authority, one went to the district auditor for a dispensation. That requirement ought to be reintroduced, though one should not have to go to the district auditor. I shall have a word to say about him later. However, the Government ought to make it clear that if there is no statutory responsibility there is no power under which money can be spent. I do not care whether posters, leaflets or preprinted cards are involved—anything that has a party political message must be caught by this legislation.
Throughout the country there have been the most blatant examples of why the Labour party does not need to spend a great deal of money on publicity. Its job is being done by Labour-controlled local authorities using the ratepayers' money. My right hon. Friend may say that the district auditor will look into that, but I believe him to be powerless.
There has been a great deal of nonsense this year involving GLC expenditure and activities, such as certain publications and posters over at county hall. Mr. Livingstone ratted on his deputy, Mr. John McDonnell. It is interesting to note that Livingstone was my opponent in Hampstead in 1979, and McDonnell in 1983. It is rather heartwarming to see thieves fall out. The tragedy is that they are falling out on ratepayers' money.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall not give way as I am talking about London. I shall leave Merseyside to my colleagues—

Mr. Roberts: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall not give way. Mr. Deputy Speaker has said that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I do not propose to give way.
What has happened in local government? The GLC and the rate-capped boroughs all claimed that services would be slashed. They claimed that old people's clubs and libraries would be closed and that refuse collection services were at risk. We now know the extent of the lie. My hon. Friend cited Islington, where even the staff could not stomach the lies that they were being asked to tell. We


know that the GLC is awash with money and that several hundreds of millions of pounds have been suddenly found. We all knew that the money existed, yet the GLC tried to argue that it could not fund its services.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider adding to the Bill a clause to stop the incestuous behaviour of Labour councillors. For example, why should the chairman of the social services committee of Hackney borough council suddenly have the job of director of Camden social services department? Why should a Brent Labour councillor become an employee of Camden borough council? Why should Mr. John McDonnell suddenly be thought the ideal person to receive £19,000 a year as policy adviser to Camden borough council?

Mr. Roberts: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: No, I shall not give way. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, if I were driven, as I might be, to be personal about him, I should, of course, give way. I do not propose to give way for any other reason. I say that clearly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you have requested brief speeches.
I am disturbed that I can find no penalty in the Bill should a local authority fail to set a rate by the due date. My right hon. Friend mentioned only the penalty of going through the courts. With great respect, however good the case of private individuals, they will not go to the courts. Equally, I do not believe that a district auditor reference is good enough. The Bill needs to be changed to include instant disqualification for those who fail to set a rate by the appropriate date.
I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will assure us that there are some teeth in the Bill. The district auditor is useless, toothless and he vacillates. For example, Camden failed to set a rate by the due date. It sent a letter to every ratepayer, signed by the leader of the council, on council stationery and with council-paid postage. Even a 2–year-old child knows that that must be illegal expenditure. Had the rate been set by the appropriate date, there would have been no need for that. Despite four letters to the district auditor, he will not tell me whether he proposes to act. We must wonder whether he is a sleeper in more senses than one.
I wish to heed your request to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask my right hon. Friend to give further thought to the content of the Bill. I hope that he will say bluntly to his colleagues in Cabinet that, on reflection, he cannot expect the House to accept a Bill that does not make it automatically illegal to spend money on anti-nuclear zones, or that does not make it automatically illegal to spend money on anti-police activities, such as those conducted by the GLC, Camden and many other authorities, which have no statutory power to do so.
If my right hon. Friend is serious, as I believe him to be, he owes it to us to be forthcoming and to say, "Yes, I am satisfied that the House wants me to go further, and I shall do so when the Bill goes into Committee."

Mr. Michael Foot: In almost every respect, this is a wretched Bill. I had thought that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) was going to accept that, having listened to his first sentence, but apparently he wants to make it even more

wretched. He will have his work cut out because it is difficult to envisage how it could be made even more contemptible.
We all recognise the real origin of the Bill—it is the result of the debate in the House and the country during the past 12 months. Although the Government have a majority, they were defeated on almost all the arguments. They are still smarting from those defeats and, rather than take them in a sensible, proper and dignified manner, they are introducing this so-called Local Government Bill. It might better be called the GLC (Abolition) Sour Grapes Bill. Indeed, we might recall, in the light of the Secretary of State's Shakespearean knowledge, the words:
I am sir Oracle,
And when I ope my lips let no dog bark
So the Bill could be called the Let no Dog Bark Bill. Of all the Ministers who have risen to such eminence under this Government, he should have been the least willing to go along with those wishing to bring this Bill before the House.
If the right hon. Gentleman was seriously thinking of introducing measures to clear up the mess left by last year's legislation, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Many local authorities are waiting for decisions from the Government. For example, there has been no sensible decision on the future of Hampstead heath, which is of great interest to many people throughout London. Ministers have been too eager to go ahead with this sort of Bill and have not applied their minds to important problems.
Nor have Ministers applied themselves to the financial aspects of local government generally or of this Bill in particular. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) gave figures in his reply to the debate on the Loyal Address showing what huge sums had been taken away from the inner cities. That action received no publicity but the small sums given by the Government machine were given great publicity.
Some of us do not qualify as representatives of inner city areas, but we are equally concerned about such transactions because we have to deal with the social and environmental consequences of 20 per cent. or more unemployment, which imposes a huge financial burden upon us. Far from the Government giving us assistance, they have been taking it away. In the Queen's Speech, the Government said that such transactions would continue.
Much publicity is given—the Government have plenty of facilities for doing so—to the expansion of youth development committees and youth training programmes. Under those programmes, the local authorities will pay most. As far as we can see, my constituency will contribute more to the youth development committee and the youth training scheme —an increase from £35,000 a year to £171,000—and more to the other training schemes —an increase of £7,000 to £58,000. We have checked this as much as we are able, and know that the total cost of youth training schemes will increase from £42,000 to £230,000—an increase of £187,000. If that goes through, it will make a considerable difference to the rate that we can bring in, just when the local authorities are having to contend with exceptional problems.
My council and the councils in south Wales and the valleys have supported these schemes because we believe that it is essential to provide every form of assistance, even though it is not perfect. Any help for young people and


those in training schemes should be supported. The Government have proposed that the local authorities contribute far more than central Government, but that is masked. Once the Bill is through, if the local authorities were to draw too much attention to this fact, they would no doubt fall foul of the Bill's provisions.
Instead of introducing this squalid little Bill, the Government should have seen the real economic and social consequences of the legislation that they have passed in the past year or two, and done something to improve the situation. Instead, we have this wretched little Bill, which is concerned solely with an attack on long-standing established local authority rights.
The Government could set up a committee to discuss the matter, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has proved, the-Government could have waited. Why did they rush forward? Did the Minister go to the Legislation Committee and say that the Government must get ahead with this measure, and as speedily as possible? I doubt whether he would have wanted a Bill such as this. Who was the Minister pressing for this measure? I dare say that it was the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whom we discovered today in his new incarnation. I bet that he was there saying: "The Government must get ahead with the Bill. Have you seen the available figures and dates? The Government must have the Bill to stop what many Labour and Liberal councils have been able to say in the past". The Government have rushed the Bill forward as their first Bill to be introduced this Session.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: In his pronouncements on the Bill, is the right hon. Gentleman criticising the express prohibition that party political propaganda should not be financed out of public funds? Is he denying the part of the Bill that prohibits the conduct of a campaign that is likely to be partisan in its consequences?

Mr. Foot: If the House is to embark on fresh measures to restrain local authorities and other bodies in the terms in which they can properly engage in general propaganda, we should do it carefully, look at it properly, set up a Committee to examine it properly, and await the report of that Committee. The Government should not come along at the beginning of a Session and insist on rushing the Bill through before the whole report is available.
What is more, the Government should make sure that they will not deprive local authorities of the rights that the Government exercise themselves. I can give a concrete example of this. A little while ago, what Tory Members would no doubt call "a load of progaganda for party purposes" was published. It is Cmnd. 9474 called "Employment: The Challenge for The Nation". It costs £3·75 and is stuffed with the old monetarist nonsense. It claims that unemployment can be dealt with solely by Conservative methods. The whole document is a statement of Government policy, paid for by the taxpayer.
Suppose local authorities in my area, which have much more experience of these matters than the Government, wish to put their case about training schemes, or want to answer the Government's immediate statement and point out that, in carrying through their new training scheme—we are eager to do that—we shall bear the heaviest burden of cost. Suppose that those local authorities get together with others to try to put across our case. All such

activity would be abrogated if the Bill goes through in the form in which the Secretary of State for the Environment has had the insolence to present it to the House.
Of all Governments in our history, no Government have such a subservient and sycophantic press as this. I do not like to involve the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) in further difficulties, but he told the House much the same thing the other day, and he was right. The Government have the tamest press in modern British history. A whole range of newspapers, with few exceptions, are on their side. Occasionally, the Government get criticised by some local newspapers—that is why the Government want to get at them all the more. They want to stop the local authorities mobilising some of the local newspapers to put the case, as they often do, because they know the case much better than the editors of the Daily Mail or the Daily Express and the other trivial newspapers that try to pretend that they know something about the matter.
I know that Saatchi and Saatchi was paid by the Conservative party, but I see from the newspapers that it has now become the biggest propaganda organisation in the country. It has taken over many of the public relations firms and I dare say that it is still getting contracts from the Government. "Employment: The Challenge for The Nation", is printed in the Conservative colours and puts the Saatchi and Saatchi case, in some respects, even better than Saatchi and Saatchi could have done. That could have been the Government's motive.
There is one mistake to which I draw the attention of the House because I want to be fair. We have all been told by Government propaganda in every form that we must concentrate not on unemployment but on the employment figures. Every time a Minister speaks here or in the other place, that point is made. In the propaganda document put out by Conservative Central Office, page 7 tries to set out the matter. It says that of the 26·5 million in the labour force, over 23 million are in work and that this is not very different from the total in work 30 years ago. The Government hope that that will quieten people's anxieties and show that the number of people in employment is high.
On page 7 there is a chart, which the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry got in—perhaps that is why he has been demoted to another Department. Figure 5 shows how employment was higher in another period than it has been before or since. That period lasted for about a couple of years and employment rose to the highest ever level, on the Government's test. That was in 1978 and 1979 when, according to the posters paid for by the Conservative party, Labour was not working.
Some local authorities may wish to point out those obvious facts—the only part of the document that has given the game away—and reply to the rest of the document and the deluge of propaganda that pours out from the Government. Nobody knows better than the Secretary of State that the Government's and public institutions' use of publicity has increased enormously in modern times. Local authorities have increasingly engaged in that activity, and have won considerable respect from their communities by doing so. Of course, if they spread false and lying propaganda, as Saatchi and Saatchi did on behalf of the Conservative party in 1978 and 1979, eventually someone will come along and show, as


I have this afternoon, what a bunch of deliberate lies it is. That is free argument. That is what democracy and free debate are about in Britain.
The Government are trying to interfere with that process of reply. They can see that, in the next two or three years, local authorities, just as they have joined together to oppose this Bill, will try to present to the communities the truth about what is happening—mass unemployment, its social evils and the poison spreading throughout society.
The Government should be ashamed of the Bill, but nobody should be more ashamed than the Secretary of State, who earned his place in the team by deserting his views on local government with shameless persistence during the past two or three years. I quoted Shakespeare earlier, but I quote again for the Secretary of State:
Thou hast it now: King, Cawdor, Glamis all … and, I fear, Thou play'dst most foully for't.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: I welcome the Bill and support the Government in bringing it forward. In the west midlands, we have been subjected to much political advertising, not least from the West Midlands metropolitan county council. This has especially been the case in respect of the transport function. Much fear has been put into old-age pensioners about the prospects for their bus passes. There have been slogans on all our buses, many of them tendentious and unwarranted, but doubtless expensive. We even had the Prime Minister carried in effigy on a lorry. That misfired in Solihull high street, because people raised their hats as it went by.
The Bill's opponents have two basic misconceptions. Some have misunderstood in good faith, others much less so. The first is to confuse persuasion about policy—which is not on—with information about function and operation. The Government are following the Widdicombe report by saying that information about function and operation is permissible, but that endeavours to indulge in propaganda to persuade people about policy is not. The Bill is faithful to the provisional findings of the Widdicombe inquiry on that point.
The second misunderstanding is to perceive local authorities as parliaments writ miniature, with a general mandate from their electorates to engage in general discussion and opinion-forming on the widest possible range of subjects of their choosing. They are not. Local authorities—local government is a misnomer—are creatures of statute. They were put in place by statute—by Parliament—and they exist to discharge statutory functions. They are administrative, not governing, entities. Having said that, I readily concede that elected councillors have available a range of discretions within the statutory framework, and a good councillor does well to exercise those discretions as he believes is most suitable for his area, the community and the people. He should exercise those discretions within the framework, but not exceed those discretions or go outside the framework.
I do not come newly to the analysis that I have just expressed, nor do I come to it as one who was relatively recently privileged to be elected to the House. I held exactly the same view trenchantly for about 14 years as an elected councillor. The conclusion of my views on the Bill is as follows: first, that the so-called date for a rate provision commends itself to the House, because the alternative is confusion, danger and uncontrolled expense;

and, secondly, that the propaganda rules, the code of practice and the accounting requirements will win the enthusiastic support of Conservative Members.
I am glad that the Government have introduced this measure. I support it, and I know that my constituents support it, too.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State and his colleagues to their new positions. With the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I wish them slightly better prospects than their predecessors had in political terms, although I share the fear of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that our expectations will not be fulfilled.
The setting up of the Widdicombe inquiry under the previous Secretary of State was welcomed by the Liberal party, as by other parties. The interim report published during the summer was also largely welcomed. The tragedy is that the Government did not heed the suggestion in the report that this Bill should reform the law, not add new restrictions. That will no doubt be the theme of deliberations in Committee.
The Government do not appear to have accepted a view that was pre-eminent in the inquiry's interim report—that local authorities are institutions which, in our constitution, are important and deserve to be upheld when performing their proper functions. The hon. Member for Copeland referred to the Liberal party as the party of community politicians. The Liberal party was given that name because it supported community-based politics, which is represented by the best areas of local government.
The Bill should deal with a clear abuse that I shall mention later, and at the same time enhance local government and the voluntary sector, upon which so many people rely. The tragedy is that, having understood the principle, the Government let it slip and have gone too far. Of course, there is an easy solution which I have already suggested to Ministers. None of the worst abuses would happen if they were brave enough to accept proportional representation in local government. A simple one-clause Bill would have remedied all the defects. But they are slow to learn and no doubt a measure such as that has to wait until later in the learning curve.
The Secretary of State's predecessor tried to take on local government and in the end was defeated by it. He could not deliver the goods. I hope that the present Secretary of State will now pay heed to the warnings of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and others and not give himself into the hands of the megalomaniacs of Marsham street and go OTT—which, he will appreciate, stands for "over the top".
I come to this debate from what can only be described as personal experience, and I admit to sharing to some extent a prejudiced viewpoint, as would anyone who, like me, has been resident for some years in the London borough of Southwark under increasingly Left-wing control—[Interruption.]—elected with 44 per cent. of the vote, although with 54 out of 64 seats.
The local authority there has often grossly disregarded the concerns of the people by spending money on publicity of a self-serving nature—money which people wanted spent on other things which would have been more useful to them, such as housing repairs, old people's homes and more adding to school provision by the education


authority. The boroughs in my part of south London, together with Liverpool, are the principal reasons for this measure.
"Islington cares" is still the poster there—I was in the area yesterday—and goes on "care for Islington", although that should be an unnecessary exhortation. The authority should gain support by what it does rather than by what it says. Lambeth's £1,000 a day spent on publicity is excessive when there is so much else that the local citizens need.
Southwark's expenditure on its monthly newspaper, The Sparrow, is, I understand, in the Labour party's draft manifesto for 1986, to be increased to a weekly newspaper, no doubt planned to have as many pictures of Labour councillors and as few of other party councillors as there are now. When local ratepayers are asked implicitly to spend £30,000 on a youth festival—which, for those who attend, is primarily a recruiting ground for Militant, Socialist Worker and the Labour party; I have written to the district auditor on the subject —they rightly complain.
We must consider such abuses. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who is the SDP spokesman on this matter, has had the same experience in Greenwich. Those abuses have caused the Bill to be produced.

Mr. Jack Straw: Where is he?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is attending a meeting, but will join the debate later. In any event, he is happy to leave this point with me because the experience is similar in both boroughs.
I want the Government to listen to the people in the know, who have made some important comments since the publication of the Bill. I want them to ensure that local government is not abused by over-reaction. While the Bill is intended to deal with abuse, the danger is that the Government will abuse local government in the result. We should seek to achieve a Bill, the sole effect of which is to ensure that abuses committed by a small minority of local authorities, which have given local government in some areas a bad name, are prevented.
The blame does not, however, lie entirely with local government. Since 1979, as this centralist Government have sought increasingly to blame local authorities and impose more central controls on them, they have tempted local authorities to fight back. By trying to throttle local government, this Government have induced abuse. The Government must take their share of the responsibility for that.
Parts III and IV of the Bill deal with finance. Part IV is a technicality, and we accept what is a good and short provision, while part III, which suggests that the consent of every mortgagor must be required to the transfer of a local authority mortgage out of local authority control, is impracticable. Although that provision might be fine in theory, it is not even fine in principle because, for example, private tenants are not asked for their consent when their landlords change. Although the Building Societies Association says that it might like such a provision, I understand that it agrees that there will be difficulties in practice. We appreciate that the provision is

in the Bill to stop capital spending—to block a way that local authorities found to increase their money—but we hope that it will be deleted.
Clause 1, which is concerned with setting a rate by 1 April, though already existing in Scotland, is a something and nothing. It says that a rate shall be fixed by 1 April, but goes on, in subsection (3), to say that the provision
shall not be construed as invalidating a rate made … after 1st April".
Some councils will try to set a rate and not agree. They may try to fulfil their duty and not succeed. That may happen with one-party or multi-party councils. The district auditor, in all areas which have district auditors, has power to deal with the issue, and the Widdicombe inquiry is also charged with examining the matter. It would be better to wait for the full report, and then select a speedy remedy if there is unreasonable delay.
One solution may be to have an earlier rate support grant. Another, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said, may be to strengthen the hand of district auditors, who often appear to be slow or toothless tigers. Indeed, I am waiting for complaints to my district auditor to be dealt with. The Widdicombe inquiry may suggest ways of strengthening their control. The Audit Commission is excused from that rebuke because it is accepted generally that it has been an impartial critic of central Government and a friend to local government.
Part II of the Bill contains the central provision. It is right to have a separate account for local authority publicity, although I am intrigued to find that the Government do not have a similar separate account nationally. I raised that matter in written questions answered today.
There is all-party agreement, at any rate in the House, about out attitude to publicity of a party political nature. and I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Copeland remind the House that that view had been given in the Labour party's submission of evidence. Clearly, the same view is not held in some Labour local authorities. But what the Labour party says centrally and what happens locally are often far apart.
I urge the Government not to go beyond the principles in part II and trespass on other rights and responsibilities of local government. Clause 2(1)(b), clause 3(1) and clause 4 are appalling and extreme. Clause 4 is horrendous in that it allows the Secretary of State to issue different codes to different local authorities at his discretion. If that is not arbitrary, nothing is. That provision should be swept from the Bill at the earliest opportunity.
Clause 2(3) is dangerous because it threatens the integrity, campaigning ability and usefulness of voluntary bodies. That, too, should go. Where there is party political unanimity, as there is on a body such as the Association of County Councils, which is of the view that sections 142 and 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 should not be amended, that view should be accepted. Indeed, I urge the Minister to go further and say that whenever all parties on a local authority agree on a matter of publicity—they often have on questions such as abolition —that campaigning should be allowed to continue.
Many good suggestions have been made in the few days since the Bill was published. We expect the Government to respond intelligently and responsibly to them in Committee. They must not brush them aside, as they did with much of the expert evidence in respect of the Local Government Bill in the last Session.
It is clear from a detailed examination of clause 2 and its extension of the Widdicombe proposals that much of that provision will be not only a legislative minefield but unenforceable. People want quick remedies, but that provision as presently drafted will involve a long procedure through the courts.
The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government, in his written answer today, told me that, in the last calendar year, the running costs of his Department's information directorate were £2,887,000, including the cost of paid publicity. If we want to limit publicity by local government, it is about time we considered how to limit publicity by public corporations, such as the London Docklands Development Corporation, and by Departments, too. Such expenditure is often party political as well.
The alliance believes that the principle of legislating to prevent local government from funding party political advertising should be accepted. If the Government hold to their present intention of going further and do not return to the principles of the Widdicombe interim report—we agree entirely with Mr. Newsam's memorandum—their support for the principle will be seen to be as prejudiced and subjective as the practices that the Government seek to prohibit.
Constructive and coherent amendments will be made in Committee. We shall make it clear what the Bill should look like. I hope that the Government will think again about the wisdom of appointing a Committee—all-party and no party—and then not taking the benefit of its advice. To over-react will be extremely damaging. We ask the Government to legislate for the principle but to cease to over-react because of their prejudices.

Dr. Keith Hampson: All hon. Members will wait with enjoyment to see the way in which alliance Members will go. There must be a kernel of truth in the Government's case and little to be said on the Opposition side if this "vital matter of principle", as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would have it, is supported by only half a dozen Opposition Members.
The heart of the problem lies in the Widdicombe interim report, on pages 24 and 25, which clearly spell out that there are many constraints on the abuse of powers by local councils. In a give-away sentence, the report says:
it is to be expected that these constraints will become better understood and will increasingly act as a moderating influence on local authorities.
Some hope! The constraints are well known, especially by local authorities. They have not had any moderating influence—to the contrary. Some local authorities have done their best to avoid those constraints. Many of the hard Left-controlled urban councils have no intention of abiding by the various controls.
It is essential to ensure that local authorities spend money on publicity relating to their functions. It is essential to provide a code that establishes what is proper in terms of style and content. One must ask, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), whether the code is to be effectively enforceable. It is essential that local authorities have identifiable budgets for their publicity spending.
There is no doubt that the public need to be more aware of the abuse by councils of funds for political campaigning, both directly and indirectly. Throughout

Britain, including cities such as Leeds, there is not, as the hon. Member for Copeland said, a denial of minority views and a Government insistence on the establishment of their views but an attempt to enforce minority views on the rest.
The rate-capping campaign in Leeds has spent well over £100,000 directly and £60,000 has gone on "peace" activities. In addition, there are indirect subsidies and covert help. The leisure services department is used to make videos and the sports halls and other facilities are used free for campaigning. The public works department provides free scaffolding for campaigning groups. There are exhibitions of the council's activities and services which the council pretends are under threat by the Government. All these activities form indirect help for the council's direct political campaigning against the Government.
That is the direct spending by Leeds council—some of it is visible; some is not. In addition, there is the funding of the so-called voluntary bodies, which Labour Members have admitted are campaigning bodies. They too campaign against Government measures. They are sympathetic to the prevailing party in the council. That money does not go generously to help the public debate and to enhance public democracy, as Labour Members say—it often directly denies democracy. The political power of the majority caucus is being used to stifle public and democratic debate.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if a voluntary body goes out of existence because of Government measures—for example, when Tyne and Wear metropolitan county council is abolished—that voluntary body has every right to tell the people why it will not be able to provide the same services that it provided in the past? Surely there is nothing wrong with that. However, under the Bill, it would be considered wrong.

Dr. Hampson: I am talking not about the funding of proper voluntary bodies, of which there are many, but about the hijacking of ratepayers' money so that it is fed to narrow partisan campaigning groups. That is insidious.
The published estimate of the cost of the "Leeds and the Bomb" pamphlets was £5,000 for publishing, but they were written in-house and there was no estimate of what that cost. Then there is the money which is being put into bodies that are not really voluntary organisations but are professional campaigning groups. If they were really voluntary, they would go out on to the streets to raise money, like charitable bodies. But their views are of such a minority kind that they would not stand a cat in hell's chance of getting off the ground but for the money from a politically biased council that enables them to hire professional staff. These groups have professional campaigning staff who are paid at the expense of local ratepayers.
Leeds city council spends a large amount on its campaigns. Indirect help is given to many groups. This includes money for Left-wing newspapers and £30,000 for the trade union and community resources centre, some of which was passed on to the "Troops out of Northern Ireland" campaign. The time and effort of local government department officials are used on behalf of anti-Government campaigns.
Perhaps the most insidious activity is the waving of Labour party cards by applicants for council jobs. There


was the case of the assistant director of further education whose life was made so difficult that he resigned and went to another county. His replacement seems to be a blatant political appointment. He is the husband of a Labour county councillor. His promotion has been so rapid that he did not have time to take up his previous post of principal of a college of further education before he was promoted yet again. A £19,000 post for the new health services unit was advertised in blatant political terms in only a certain number of publications, including The Guardian. The person appointed is well known in the city as a sympathiser of the Left on the city council.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend referred to where the posts are advertised. Is he aware that many Labour authorities advertise all the posts in Labour Weekly? It is therefore hardly surprising that the applicants arrive waving their Labour party membership cards.

Dr. Hampson: That is another example of what I call indirect assistance being given to Left-wing propaganda journals, newspapers and periodicals by the placing of advertisements which are of no value but which contribute to the revenue of those periodicals.
In Leeds there is increasing comment about the leader of the Labour group's so-called "Red Star" system. When shortlists for council posts are drawn up, red stars are put against those who are sympathetic to the Labour group's views and are therefore suitable to be considered for the post. That is a sad comment on the leader of the Labour group whose image is moderate, sensible and reasonable. Either he has become a pawn of the Left, or he is a more subtle politician of the Left than his image has so far conveyed. The Labour group will do nothing to support the Government's initiative on the city action teams or the campaign some of us tried to get over for Leeds. On the one hand, it is intensively partisan in the way that it handles some of its expenditure, but if there is money coming from the Thatcher Government, the group will not touch it.
Leeds has lost money that could have been used in the city on training and vocational education. The Open University was given money by the Department of Education and Science for an adult counselling scheme. That was first approved and then rejected in August by a council committee. Regional Manpower Services Commission money was rejected because it seemed to the Labour group that it was taking money from a Conservative Government whom it does not like. That is partisanship gone mad and totally to the detriment of the interests of the people of Leeds. It does not show the sense of responsibility that is expected from leading councillors in one of the great cities of the land.
There have been stories of the chairman of one of the council's sub-committees opening the mail of the deputy officer of the sub-committee. The Labour group is worried about the partisanship of the council officers. The great tradition that council officers should be bipartisan and serve all councillors is being replaced by a feeling that they should be at the service of the majority party.
One Labour supporter is so fed up with, or to use the word of the hon. Member for Copeland "disgusted" by, this growing practice that he has even told me that the council leader, George Mudie, has said that he will make

the education director's life impossible. I have not checked that with the officer because I did not wish to place him in the embarrassing position of being accused of giving me the information when he did not. The standards in some of our great cities are deteriorating.
It is a tragedy of misinformation and abuse of which the public are not aware. The Government's intentions in this Bill touch only the tip of the iceberg. They are not to stifle democracy and head off local democratic debate, which is the charge from the Labour Front Bench, but to ensure that the public know what is happening and that democracy prevails.

Mr. Terry Fields: The public must be wondering why we are spending today discussing this piece of nonsense when we have 5 million people unemployed, housing deprivation in the inner city areas, hospital closures, the education service in tatters, and social security cuts. The reality, and the more sinister implication of the Government's action, is that next year in the battle over rate support grant the Government will be taking other local authorities down the road that they have taken Liverpool, in an attempt to stifle proper democratic discussion and debate. The Government are seeking to muzzle local authorities for telling the truth about the Government's intentions.
Why do we need the Bill? The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the district auditor is a "toothless tiger", but in Liverpool that so-called "toothless tiger" is judge, jury and executioner. He is self-appointed and, as the Secretary of State said today, he is unanswerable to Parliament. He comes in, does his business and surcharges the council in Liverpool. Ultimately he has the power to throw council members into gaol. We have that fallback position. Liverpool's situation, to which the Minister refers time and again, is partly of the Government's making. That is evident in some of the reporting of the crisis in Liverpool.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) referred to the former Secretary of State for the Environment who sent a letter to John Hamilton, the leader of Liverpool city council. In it he said:
I very much hope we can develop an effective and constructive partnership to tackle the needs of the people of Liverpool. … I can give you an assurance that I will do my very best to ensure that allocations to Liverpool next year under the Housing Investment Programme and the Urban Programme, taken together, will enable the Council to make positive progress in dealing with the City's severe needs".
The Government go running to the papers with those statements. Despite all the statements from the Front Bench, instead of an injection of cash, since 1979 Liverpool has had £170 million in rate support grant removed, £24 million of further education grants removed, £69 million of housing subsidy removed and £96 million of housing investment programme removed.
In an attempt to tell the truth to the people of Liverpool, the council sent a notification to every household. It is now being muzzled and prevented from carrying out its democratic rights.
The background to the deprivation that is occurring in Liverpool has been repeated many times in the House. The Secretary of State referred to the Stonefrost report and used it to back up his arguments this afternoon. Misinformation


always comes from the Government, and the Secretary of State did not mention that the Stonefrost report eloquently said that the problems affecting Liverpool were
The Tory Government's politically biased rate support grant penalty system".
and
The inherited problems from the previous Liberal/Tory administration".
We put out the facts on "Liverpool: a Socialist Council" headed paper to try to tell the truth to the people, because the Government are lying to the people of Liverpool affected by their draconian measures.
What is happening in Liverpool is the result of Government measures—the savage cuts in the money which is badly needed in cities such as Liverpool. Inevitably, the weak link gave way, and that is what has happened in Liverpool. It is a horror story of crimes committed by the Government.
We must remind people and tell them the truth about what is happening, because the Government are clearly not prepared to tell the truth about the 65,000 people who have lost their jobs since they have been in office, the 40,000 jobs that have been lost from the private sector and the 22,000 people on the housing waiting list. The public should know all that, but it is information to which the Government, with all their distortions and lies, are denying them access.
Stonefrost did not only propose a 15 per cent. rate increase, as the Secretary of State alleged. The report said that other measures would be necessary. Some were contained in a document from the Liverpool city treasurer. The Stonefrost report calls him a man of integrity and honour. Stonefrost does not suggest that the game would be over with a 15 per cent. rate increase. Capitalisation destroys the possibility of hundreds of people obtaining homes and means rent rises in excess of £6·50 into the bargain. That is the reality.

Mr. Tony Banks: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept from me that Maurice Stonefrost, who is the director general of the Greater London council, is a skilful local authority bureaucrat and a completely loyal staff member at County hall. He can only put forward officers' views. He would understand, better than anyone else, that it is the politicians, including those on Liverpool council, who must make political decisions, not the bureaucrats.

Mr. Fields: That is correct. Hard decisions must be made and places such as Liverpool must wrestle with their problems to resolve them. We pay due regard to that. Nevertheless, it means that this Government, in setting the date as 1 April, make no allowance at all. The Secretary of State talked about it being physically impossible. For Liverpool city council, it is physically impossible to jack up the rates and rents, sack workers and stop building the houses that 22,000 people desperately need.
A propaganda war is currently taking place, and while we need some of the leaflets and publicity put out, we also have to explain to workers the hypocrisy of Tory Members. Those hon. Members and their friends in Fleet street, the five press barons who control practically the whole national press, spew out their lies and propaganda against the interests of ordinary working people. The so-called Labour paper edited and controlled by Maxwell is no friend of Liverpool or working people either. The responsibility for the problems we are facing rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government.
What the Secretary of State said underlines the case we have made repeatedly. He will not meet the city council. nor has he done so during his term of office. He has never set foot in Liverpool to see the scenes and the holocaust for which his Government are responsible. Liverpool will not go away. In their impertinence, Government Members believe that, with the passing of this Bill, Liverpool will ultimately go away. It will not go away, and even at this late stage I urge the Minister to meet the city councillors and thrash out the problem that is facing the people of Liverpool.
During the discussions in this House over the last few days, people have attempted to give us a history lesson, contrasting, for example, George Lansbury with Derek Hatton, Comrade Bernie Grant and Ted Knight. But those hon. Members do not tell the whole story, because Lansbury and the Poplar councillors went to gaol for their beliefs. That will happen to Hatton and company in Liverpool for their opposition to this Government, and they will be going to gaol on behalf of decent people who need the houses, jobs and proper services that this Government are denying. [Laughter.] The Minister may laugh, but he will be laughing on the other side of his face in a short time, because the people of Liverpool will see through the dishonesty and disgusting attitudes of this Government. Lansbury went to gaol and men and women in Poplar went to gaol and changed the law. Liverpool will battle with other local authorities which next year will be in Liverpool's position. We will battle not only to change the law, but to bring down this Government and to free Liverpool people and working people nationally from the absolute horror story of this Thatcher Government.

Mrs. Marion Roe: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) has already said, this Bill is a product of its time. Ten years ago the House would not have needed to consider a measure of this sort. Since then, the nature of local government in this country, particularly in London, has changed completely. This change is exemplified nowhere more clearly than in the affairs of the GLC since 1981. Other local authorities both in and outside London—Lambeth, Hackney, Camden, Liverpool, and so on—are following the path that the GLC has beaten.
I am the only Conservative Member of Parliament who is still a serving member of the GLC and many of my constituents work in London. I welcome the fact that the GLC is to be abolished, but, even after abolition, the effects of GLC mismanagement of ratepayers' money will live on. We need to return local government to its proper functions, and to do that we must identify what has happened outside those functions.
The GLC has attracted much press attention since Labour took control in 1981. We are all familiar with the self-publicising of its leader, Ken Livingstone. However, much of its activity has received scant publicity, partly because the functions of the GLC are few and in the main impinge very little upon the day-to-day life of most Londoners. It is also because such press coverage as there has been has centred upon the more absurd Labour actions. Grants to groups such as Babies Against the Bomb have been ridiculed, and others, to the Liberation Movement for Colonial Freedom, for instance, have been portrayed as


occasional aberrations in favour of pet Left-wing causes. They are, in fact, somewhat colourful decorations on what is a more substantial cake.
The Labour Left did not set out to take control of the Greater London council in order to preside over waste disposal, the fire service or the creation of the Thames flood barrier, and have the odd foray into the patronage of fringe elements. It saw the GLC as far more. It saw it as a vehicle to begin to change society, principally by acting as a large, publicly funded pressure group. At the same time, the GLC could act as a blueprint for a future Labour Government, both at national and local level. Before the elections of 1981, Ken Livingstone announced:
Wherever there is an industrial dispute in London, we shall go down and support it…we will use the whole structure of the GLC to support trade unionists in struggle throughout London … and work with the trade unions to try to bring this Government down ahead of its time.
No one can argue that the interests of local government are served by such remarks. All they show is contempt for the democratic process. That was emphasised by Ken Livingstone in a letter to committee chairmen on 2 April 1985:
It is basic GLC policy that London and Londoners need more control over their lives, not less.
The activities of the Labour group over the last four years give a clear picture of what that control means. Two areas of activity serve to illustrate both Labour's objectives and the extraordinary use of ratepayers' money to further their cause nationally. The first is in the use of grant-aid to other bodies, both local authorities and self-appointed groups, and the second is in the development of industrial and financial policy beyond the notional scope of local government activity.
To Labour in London, local government is no longer about the administration of local services for the benefit of all. It is about acquiring a political power base, and the ratepayers' money that goes with it, to promote its own vision of society. Any discussion of recent difficulties between national and local government ignores this development at its peril. One element of the grants policy adopted by the Labour GLC since 1981 was the creation of a police committee—despite the fact that the GLC has no responsibility for policing in London. The police committee met for the first time on 13 July 1981, with the following terms of reference:
Matters relating to the policing of Greater London, law enforcement and public order therein, including links with other bodies concerned.
In 1982–83 it had a budget of £848,000. By 1985–86 this had risen to £2,904,000. The majority of that money was used as grant-aid to 49 organisations throughout London. Despite the tone of the publicity which these grants have generated, the policy has not been to award aid in a random way to vague Left-wing causes. Grants were used to set up a network of groups which propagate the views of the London Labour party and simultaneously act to undermine public confidence in the police.
The main instruments for this have been the police monitoring groups. There are 21 of these self-appointed groups, operating in London, all funded primarily by the GLC and, on occasions, actively seeking grants from Labour-controlled borough councils as well. By 2 July

1985, the GLC had awarded these groups grants totalling £2,080,623—£23,000 more than the Labour party spent nationally at the last general election.
The theme of the GLC pronouncements is always the same—the so-called "democratic accountability" of the police, as enshrined by the GLC and now the Labour party. Support for the police is totally non-existent. The groups collect information about policing in their areas, concentrating in particular on complaints against policing strategy and individual police officers. Each group relays the information to the support unit of the GLC police committee. The groups shun official methods of dealing with the police. Nothing that they do in any way helps to tackle crime. Most of their actions simply make policing an even more difficult job than it is anyway.
The creation of a large network of activists, paid out of public funds, is a new development within the sphere of local government. It constitutes a new use of money spent under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, and serious questions are raised by that activity. It demonstrates that the section is now being used to fund activities outside the proper sphere of local government, and is being improperly used to reward or secure party political support.
Equally worrying has been the publication of the "London Industrial Strategy." It is a book of 633 pages, it covers 21 sections of the economy and is in general beyond the bounds of the GLC's competence throughout. Each chapter, covering a different industry, was assembled from the conclusions of several papers. Each includes a summary of its contents and a series of recommendations for action, many of which are well beyond the responsibilities of the GLC.
Taken as a whole, the strategy represents a model of a Department of Trade and Industry/Department of Employment policy that would be followed by a Left-wing Labour Government, and the work done on it has been financed by the ratepayer. One example serves to give the flavour of the document. The chapter dealing with vehicle manufacture is nothing but an attack upon the Ford Motor Company. Left-wing hostility to multinational companies is commonplace, but the GLC, with its huge resources and potential influence, represents a more considerable threat. Certainly nothing in the strategy would do anything for jobs in the industry. The GLC sums up its objectives by saying that to curb a powerful multinational, such as Ford, will require both direct action by workers and a range of Government interventions at national and European levels.
The GLC plans to provide resources and facilities for international meetings of Ford workers and trade unions, and the first steps have already been taken. A conference for trade union representatives from Ford plants throughout Europe and Brazil took place in Eastbourne in February 1984. That conference was supported by the GLC. Where does all that fit into the proper activities of local government? The GLC itself was not always so sure and frequently had to employ counsel to find out. By 26 June 1984 the GLC had spent £125,925 for that purpose alone since its election, and the chairman of the legal and general committee admitted that the GLC had not yet been charged for a further 25 per cent. of the work commissioned. One is left with the impression that the Labour GLC deliberately set out to use ratepayers' money to create a Left-wing national policy.
Most worrying was the production of a series of papers from the GLC on the theme of the food industry, which


appeared some time before a pamphlet on the same themes was published by the Labour party headquarters at Walworth road. It is hard to believe that the two were not connected.
Abolition of the GLC will make no difference to the work that has already been done and still continues at County hall. A steady quantity of labour "policies in waiting" has emerged from County hall. It will be interesting to see how many resurface in the next Labour party general election manifesto. A substantial amount of political work has been done at ratepayers' expense, and there can be no doubt that it has been beyond the boundaries of local government responsibility.
If local government is to maintain its proper functions and the respect of ratepayers, much of the ostentatious political activity associated with London councils needs to be removed from the sphere of local services. The Bill will assist to do just that. Councils do not exist to provide minority activists with a platform to play politics with other people's lives. People have a right to see their rates used for the proper purpose—services that benefit all.

Mr. Bill Michie: It is very sad that once again the House is debating local government democracy, or the demise of it, and further restrictions on local government and decision-making. The Government are yet again bringing in further control and restriction on very important matters on which I shall speak later.
I am worried about the Government's haste. They have decided to rush through the Bill to silence local authorities and many other groups which dare to have an alternative view, or to express concern. I assume that the Government have chosen the present time because they feel that they will riot particularly like the outcome of the Widdicombe inquiry. I assume that the Secretary of State has already had a sniff of it and feels that something should be done before the full report is available to the general public and this House.
The inquiry and the findings so far have established some very important facts. As was said earlier, it is felt that the total spending on publicity by local authorities is a very small amount, and that the amount spent on so-called controversial political matters is even smaller. There is no substantial evidence of public concern on the issue of publicity.
It has been agreed that persuasion is not unlawful as long as it is consequential to the publication of information. It is well known that there are considerable legal constraints on local authorities regarding advertising, particularly on the question of what is political propaganda and advertising. It is significant that the inquiry report contained no single example of party political advertising being exploited by local authorities.
It has been accepted in principle that local authorities may publicise matters of political controversy, provided that the material issued is in the interests of a local authority itself. There is little doubt that local authorities are in a much better position than central Government to decide on the right level of their publicity.
Local authorities have made valuable contributions on wider policy matters than those strictly related to their statutory functions. How can the Government argue for more democracy, more freedom and more open Government, and yet at the same time introduce the Bill, which is a further restriction on local government,

dictating to local authorities what publicity they can use and for what purpose? It must be right for local authorities to extend their communication to the electorate rather than to restrict it.
It has often been said that the present public perception of services in local government leaves a lot to be desired. Surely publicity from local authorities can bridge the gap and encourage more people to take an active part and interest in local affairs.
The Bill runs straight into the face of the current understanding of what we mean by greater participation by a greater number of people in our democratic structure. The Bill will create even more imbalance between the powers of local and central Government. Many people fear this part of the Bill on the ground that sooner or later central dictation will rule supreme, with little or no opposition from anywhere within the United Kingdom.
Many groups will be affected and feel restricted. I am certain that local newspapers and, indeed, national newspapers will feel that the restrictions go too far. Indeed in another country, under another regime, the only newspaper that would find this Bill attractive would be Pravda.
Even now, local authorities spend a very small amount of their budgets on publicity and many people, at least in my area, wish it were more. On the other side of the equation the Government, on their own admission, have spent £2·75 million of taxpayers' money on publicity stunts for their own policies on abolition, rate capping and the sale of council houses. Where is the justification for that? What is good for one is apparently bad for the other. Is it because Big Brother or, in this case, Big Sister knows best?
This Bill creates further minefields of chaos and absurdities in the relationship between central and local government. Who decides what publicity is necessary and indeed useful? Who decides whether councils or voluntary services should inform the public about the effect of local expenditure restrictions imposed by the Government? Will local authorities be allowed to publish information on welfare rights and guidance to the public on complaints procedures? Will local authorities be able to inform the public of the likely effects of the Transport Bill? Will it be illegal for social services and local authorities or voluntary groups funded by local authorities to run campaigns against drug abuse, to remind people of the importance of making surgical smears or indeed to explain to the public what local authorities are trying to do to sustain and create new job opportunities in areas of high unemployment?

Mr. Eric Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a political party wishes to promote its beliefs it is perfectly free to do so provided that it raises the funds from its own activities? What we are trying to prevent in this Bill is the use of taxation—ratepayers' money—for party political use. We argue that a political party should use its own funds to promote its own views.

Mr. Michie: I am sorry that I gave way.

Mr. Forth: I bet the hon. Gentleman is.

Mr. Michie: I am wasting my time. Parties raise funds for their own political propaganda. I am talking about information given to the public through the city council


machinery. If we spent as much money as the Government spend on their propaganda, they would have something to grouse about. Local authorities and other bodies can give much information that is useful to the public.
In my constituency we have 18 to 22 per cent.—and rising—unemployment. Male unemployment is now 19 to 22 per cent. in Sheffield. That is unprecedented. It must be right for local authorities to try to help people in their desperate need to find jobs and to inform the public that the city council is aware of their situation and is trying its best to alleviate unemployment as far as possible.
Many projects and publicity campaigns have lifted morale and raised the level of public interest. Many of those campaigns have been, and still are being, considered by various Government Departments.
When the location of the Community trade mark office was being considered by the EC and the Government, in the full knowledge that the Government felt that the office should be in London, the people of Sheffield decided on a campaign for the office to be in Sheffield. This was not just a campaign by the Labour-controlled local authority—it was promoted jointly by the Company of Cutlers in Hallamshire, Sheffield city council, Sheffield chamber of commerce, the university of Sheffield, the Assay Office, the Sheffield city polytechnic, Sheffield Members of Parliament and members of the European Parliament. Are we saying that such joint ventures will in future be scrutinised by the Government and be rendered illegal by the Bill? What about publicity to help or advise unemployed young people?
There have been highly successful publicity campaigns —with political overtones maybe—encouraging young people to join groups and unemployed centres and to have a much more constructive time rather than sitting about at home. Such activity has raised their level of interest and their optimism while a real job is being made available. Moreover, such action helps to take pressure off inner city services and raises the aspirations of many young people.
The Secretary of State for the Environment is studying an employment and environmental plan for the lower Don valley, Sheffield, which is the product of many years of work involving communications and publicity drawing together the public, trade and industry. The information gathered and published in the pamphlet "From the Ashes" is invaluable for the Government and should be recognised as such. It should not be regarded as a threat because it was inspired by the city council.
It is well understood that the Bill will affect all councils— not just Labour-controlled ones—that get off their backsides and try to fight for their areas and the people they represent. The main line electrification campaign, which was launched in Sheffield, was signed not by the leader of Sheffield city council alone—the leader of the Conservative opposition also signed it. It has the support and/or financial backing of 17 local authorities, including six Conservative-controlled ones—Bedfordshire county council, Charnwood district council, Kettering borough council, Leicestershire county council, Northampton county council and Wellingborough county council. I can imagine the Government's political inspector having a difficult job justifying an attack on such a publicity campaign for being political when the campaign is directed merely at trying to get the Government to do something.
This is a bad Bill. I cannot put it much better than the Sheffield Morning Telegraph. A headline in that newspaper of Saturday 9 November proclaimed:
Bill Bears Hallmarks of Bad Law".
The paper made it clear—I know this because I read it every day—that it has many criticisms to level at local government. The paper has previously commented favourably on the Government's attempts to curb some local government activities. The paper's attitude to this Bill is quite clear. It said:
the proposed Local Government Bill which will ban party-political propaganda on the rates and force local Councils to set a rate by April 1st each year is yet another example of the Government's lack of coherent strategy on local government. Its own requirement of local government seems to be that it should do as it is told by central Government. And whenever local authorities fail to fall in line, new legislation is dreamed up to put more pressure on the town halls.
The article says later:
Legislation intended to stifle opposition to central Government is surely unacceptable in Britain. It is difficult to see how a Bill of this kind can possibly get through the House of Lords which has become the guardian of our unwritten constitution in recent years. The way to control local government is through the ballot box.
I and, I am sure, my right hon. and hon. Friends agree. Although I see some merit in setting a rate by 1 April, I ask the House to reject the Bill.

Mr. Piers Merchant: In the increasingly complicated and fraught area of local government, it is good to see a thin Bill that has been drafted quickly and effectively to deal with a growing problem. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on that.
I regret the need for yet more local government legislation, but I regret even more the circumstances that have given rise to it. Some people believe that the Bill lacks clarity or that it is insufficient to deal with the problem. I am confident, however, that the House will ensure that it is as tightly and accurately formed as possible, although I see no obvious inadequacies in it. The judgment of sufficiency is a matter for hindsight, and it is always open to the House to pass additional legislation if that proves necessary, as it may do. Whatever else, this is an important step which should dramatically improve the present position, and the sooner the Bill is passed the better.
Part II is by far the most important part of the Bill. There are two main victims of the misuse of public money for political advertising who must be protected. The first group is deprived and poor citizens, especially in inner city areas, whose money is being stolen by Labour politicians and wasted on propaganda. If those people wanted food, Labour politicians would say, "Let them eat paper." More to the point, those people want houses, and better schools, but they get unwanted newspapers, glossy freesheets, posters and campaigns. Resources raised to help those people are plundered and diverted in a direction which will not help them.
The second victim is the ratepayer—the thousands of people and businesses who fund local government and sacrifice their cash supposedly to help the less well off and to pay for essential services. Instead, their money is used unacceptably for entirely different purposes—political propaganda that they do not want, expect or endorse, and that is alien to the accepted consensus and tradition of local


government. When local government has already strained ratepayers, loyalty too far, this extra initiative strains their loyalty past the limit.
I shall draw on my experience of the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It is only reasonable for ratepayers who pay the highest rates in the country at least to expect some attempt at value for money, and a sensible order of priorities. As for the businesses which are going bankrupt or throwing people on the dole solely because of the rates level—that has been well established—[Interruption.] Businesses—the best people of all—have shown through their accounts and figures that that is precisely what is happening.

Mr. Tony Banks: By whom has that been established? When will the hon. Gentleman put pressure on the Government to publish the Cambridge report on the relationship between rates and jobs? It showed that there was no correlation between high rates and a loss of jobs. It is time that the hon. Gentleman got some economic literacy around him.

Mr. Merchant: If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall publish the Newcastle report, which shows emphatically that hundreds of jobs in Newcastle have been lost directly as a result of high rates. Those figures come from the best possible judges—the employers and businesses.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend said that Newcastle had the highest rates in the country. May I point out that Newcastle has the highest rate poundage and that Cleveland has the highest rate? Moreover, we have the highest unemployment. However many Cambridge statisticians may produce statistics, the plain facts are that in Langbaurgh, Hartlepool and Stockton, we have the highest unemployment and the highest rates.

Mr. Merchant: I would not wish to cross swords with my hon. Friend on the issue. I am sure that we can agree that we can produce almost unlimited statistics to prove the direct correlation between high rates and unemployment.
I wish to deal with the 1986–87 proposed budget of Newcastle city council, and its priorities. To pay for the retention of, for example, City News, which is the regular council propaganda sheet, and for the so-called priority area team newsletters, which are issued abundantly, the council is planning a package of cuts in other areas, which include stopping all weekend street cleansing, thereby adding more litter on the streets to the litter which will apparently he shoved through people's letter boxes, axing 15 teachers in middle schools, increasing the charges for meals on wheels or day centres, axing the learning support services in schools, or cutting emergency housing repair services. One of those options has become necessary because of the sums being spent to sustain City News. That list does not begin to take account of the areas of essential local government services which must be cut or removed entirely to maintain the costly public relations and press department, which does not appear to be a vital service.

Mr. Bob Clay: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the publication of City News in Newcastle will be stopped if the Bill becomes law? Would the priority area team newsletters be stopped if the Bill became law? Will he list the other publications of Newcastle city council or Tyne and Wear county council which will be stopped as a result of the Bill becoming law?

Mr. Merchant: I have a selection of different publications which the city council produces, and which I am sure would be stopped if the legislation passed into law because of their contents. As for City News—

Mr. Clay: Name the publications that would be stopped by the Bill.

Mr. Merchant: I shall refer to them in detail in a minute. I have samples of them with me. Many issues of City News would certainly not be permissible under the legislation. I cannot predict whether the content and aim of City News will be changed as a result of the legislation. It is up to the local authority to decide. To alter its impact or play down its political message to maintain it as a publication, which might be done, would not benefit the people of Newcastle, whom the council are supposed to look after, bearing in mind the other necessary services.
It is ironic that the authority complains that it has insufficient money with which to provide services, moans about the loss of grant, which it brought about by its own actions, and is angry at being rate-capped, for which it is also responsible, yet continues to spend large sums on producing papers, leaflets and campaigns and on running an unnecessarily large public relations unit.
It is also interesting that the authority which has set up the so-called priority area teams which are designed to concentrate resources on Labour wards, and which is at least supposed to help deprived people and areas, is spending much of that money purely on propaganda. Priority area teams produce their own individual ward newsletters regularly, which promote their Labour councillors, and run glossy campaigns in a highly partisan political way. One of the worst examples is in the Moorside ward. I have a typical leaflet with me, which is full of highly political statements. It is entitled "Back to work campaign", and states:
Society is paying too high a price for Government policies. Mobilise the unemployed into campaigning. Increase public awareness of the problem of being unemployed. Draw attention to the effects of Government policies on unemployment, for example, privatisation, ratecapping, abolition of the county council.
Those may well be the views of Opposition Members and Labour members of the city council, but they are not the views of Conservative Members or Conservative councillors on the city council. Therefore, it is party political propaganda. If Labour Members wish to publish it, they should do so, but financed by the Labour party or themselves.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr. Merchant: I have already taken enough interventions, and I wish to proceed with my argument in view of the time.
Last year City News dropped its usual title, replaced it with Campaign News, and spent £10,000 on a specific political campaign against the Rates Bill before it had been fully debated by Parliament. Therefore, it was obviously pursuing a highly party political campaign. the city council was widely condemned by all political parties, except the Labour party, and even by some Labour councillors. That is another specific example of money being spent on propaganda, which would not be permitted under this legislation.

Mr. Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Merchant: I shall not give way again in view of the time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to contribute his views.
Last year people on Tyneside were furious when the Tyne and Wear county council diverted £250,000 of ratepayers' money to the NUM to support the miners' strike. Newcastle city council later followed suit with a smaller sum. The patience of ratepayers has been strained to the limit by the extra misuse of their money on propaganda, and they are witnessing a growing trend.

Mr. Clay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) to say something that is blatantly untrue, and which he knows is untrue? The NUM did not receive donations from the Tyne and Wear county council. Donations were received by individual miners who were experiencing hardship, just as they received donations from many members of the public—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) must take responsibility for the speech he is making.

Mr. Merchant: Perhaps at some stage the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) will enlighten us on who ran and held the fund.

Mr. Michie: I did.

Mr. Merchant: That rather proves the point.
The patience of the ratepayers and people of Newcastle, as in many other parts of the country, has been strained to the limit by the misuse of their money on propaganda and, as I have said, they are seeing a growing trend. They rightly ask, "What on earth is a local authority doing using our money to try to persuade us to change our views or to influence our assessment of current affairs?" That is surely the reverse of the current relationship —that a local authority should be listening, not broadcasting, and should be carrying out the wishes of the local population rather than persuading that population to follow its wishes.
People look to Government to correct this perversion of the role of local councillors. The Bill does that, and the sooner it is in force, the better.

Mr. Tony Banks: Life in this House would seem very strange if we were not debating yet another interminable Local Government Bill or using Westminster to interfere in the affairs of democratically-elected local authorities. We are doing that yet again tonight. The Bill is just a continuation of the malicious campaign that the Government have incessantly waged against our town halls since 1979, and the ferocity of that campaign has been stepped up since 1983.
Support for the Bill by Conservative Members has been based on the usual amalgam of anecdotes, half-truths and bigotry that one has come to expect from the Conservative Benches. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) said, this measure will not build or renovate any more houses, nor restore cuts in library services. It will do nothing for the social services. All those matters are affected by central Government policies, and the Government are responsible for the downturn, mass unemployment and deprivation in our inner city areas. It must have struck home to Conservative Members that there is a close correlation between high

Unemployment and social and economic deprivation and the riots that we have witnessed in our cities. All those incidents have taken place in Labour local authority areas and in areas represented by Labour Members of Parliament.
Conservative Members will no doubt argue that if the money spent on information—they call it propaganda—had been spent on other things, those riots would not have occurred. However, they should read what Widdicombe says about the amount of money spent by local authorities on so-called propaganda. It is infinitesimal compared with the total budgets that local authorities command. Frankly, had none of that money been spent, it would not have made a jot of difference to the massive social problems facing our inner city areas.

Mr. Forth: How much did the GLC spend on its campaign against abolition? Will the hon. Gentleman estimate how many houses that would have built or how many people in need it would have helped?

Mr. Banks: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure. I prefer to trade in accurate facts, not vague generalisations. The total amount to 31 March 1986—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to spend up to that date—will be £7,676,779 out of a total budget of £2,000 million. Conservative Members should bear that in mind.
I accept that that money would have built some more houses, but how many more would be built with the £15,000 million that the Government are wasting on Trident? These arguments can be swapped backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House, and hon. Members can make of them what they will, but I know that even fewer houses will be built once the GLC is abolished. Had we been able to dissuade the Government from their disastrous course of abolishing the GLC, that £7 million would have been well spent. As it is, the money has been well spent on advising the people of London what they will lose when the GLC is abolished.
This Bill is about pandering to the whims of the authoritarian bigot who leads this country and the Conservative party. The Prime Minister, whose finger is on the Bill all the time, knows nothing of local government except that it always seems to be giving her trouble. It has never occurred to the right hon. Lady that the trouble might be caused by her policies. She seems to think that is a failure of her Ministers to get the message across and that somehow we should grow to like abolition and rate capping. She would like us to think that it will be good for us. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State's predecessor was found to be wanting in that respect, and now he is taking an early bath.
I had hoped that the new Secretary of State, who comes to us with something of a reputation—although he did a neat Brutus job on his former environment boss—would for once have defended local government, but he could hardly wait to bring forward this new attack on councils.
It has been claimed that Labour local authorities in particular have adopted a change of attitude towards central Government. Yes, they have. They have been forced to do so because central Government have completely changed the rules. No central Government since the war have, as the present Government have, used mass unemployment as an act of deliberate policy. No other central Government have cut the amount of money


available for local government expenditure, nor have they constructed a local authority finance arrangement that is inexplicable to most and capable of allowing Ministers to fiddle on the advice of their civil servants. The Government have changed the relationship between central and local Government, and, in doing so, they have brought local government to the brink of chaos.
Conservative Members have said much about party political progaganda, but that really means facts, propaganda or campaigns with which they personally do not agree. Anyone who knows anything about local government knows that it is already illegal to have party political campaigning on the rates, and Widdicombe has produced no evidence to show that that has happened.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: rose—

Mr. Banks: It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman, because he has not been around very much this evening.
There is no way in which the GLC would have got away with party political campaigning on the rates given the number of times that it has been in and out of the courts.
It is all very well for the Government to say that the GLC has used ratepayers' money on propagandising, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, the Government have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to put forward their policies. From the Opposition's point of view, the fact that the Tory party is in office and puts forward its policies based on its party political programme looks exactly like party political propaganda. I do not complain about that, because that is what democracy is all about. If we win an election, either at local or national level, we have a right—nay, a responsibility—to put over our policies to the electorate. I see nothing wrong with that. It is called democracy.

Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that there is no such thing as Government or local government money? It is ratepayers' and taxpayers' money that we are entrusted to spend in a sensible and responsible way. If a local authority decides to become, politically, a nuclear-free zone and spends millions of pounds on large posters telling everybody who motors through its area that it is a nuclear-free zone, is it erecting the posters for the benefit of low-flying Russian aircraft or, yet again, is ratepayers' money being spent in a wasteful political way? That is only one of many examples of waste.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman has a great depth of knowledge about local government that all hon. Members will respect. There is nothing wrong with a local authority advocating a nuclear-free zone if it believes that a heightened awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons is in the interests of its ratepayers. The Government spend millions of pounds advocating the use and retention of nuclear weapons. Why is it good enough for central Government to spend—as the hon. Gentleman so rightly said—taxpayers' money but wrong for local authorities to spend ratepayers' money?
Elected authorities must act as they see fit in the interests of the people they represent. As I said earlier, I not complaining about the money that the Government spend. I believe that they have a responsibility to do so if they believe that it is in the national interest. Equally, I believe that it is right for local authorities to do likewise if they believe that the policies being advocated are in the

interests of their constituents. That is called democracy and it is about time that the Conservative party started to learn a little about it instead of trying continually to undermine it.

Mr. Holt: rose—

Mr. Banks: I shall not give way.

Mr. Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman afraid to do so?

Mr. Banks: I shall not give way but I am certainly not afraid of the hon. Gentleman.
The modern Conservative party appears to believe in democracy only on its own terms. That democracy has to be set aside if it threatens Tory party interests. Conservative Members must realise that a pluralist democracy needs a strong local government presence. It needs a voice arguing, if necessary, against the policy of central Government. The voice of County hall has been loud since 1983, because local government has never before been under such sustained attack from central Government. That is true of town halls and county halls throughout the country.
The GLC's awareness campaign against abolition undoubtedly outraged the Prime Minister and her Ministers. Perhaps that is a major origin of the Bill. It was an extremely successful campaign. Indeed, the GLC swept the board at this year's advertising industry's awards. It will go down in history as one of the most effective campaigns ever seen in Britain, and I am very proud of that.
The campaign was necessary, first, because abolition was and remains an exercise in party political vindictiveness. It is wholly irrelevant to the efficient running of local government in London. Secondly, the campaign was needed to counter the downright lies, distortions and misinformation about the GLC that were put out by the Government's propaganda machines in Whitehall and Fleet street. We at County hall believed that it would have been a dereliction of duty to allow the lies of The Sun, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and other gutter rags to create their image of the GLC in the minds of Londoners. We could not expect impartiality from the Government and we certainly could not expect objectivity from Fleet street. Accordingly, we provided both through our anti-abolition campaign. I believe that in doing so we have raised the level of consciousness in London. We have alerted Londoners to what they will lose after 31 March 1986. That is why more than two thirds of Londoners support the GLC and oppose its abolition, which the Government want to push through.
It is clear that the Bill is intended to try to blunt the political impact of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, especially on the local elections that will take place in May 1986. I do not think that the Government will succeed. They have involved themselves in a cynical exercise. The Government set up the Widdicombe inquiry and expected it to find local authorities guilty on all counts. Ministers still refer to it as the inquiry investigating local authority abuses. The interim report of the Widdicombe inquiry did not deliver the goods that the Government were hoping for and expecting. They are effectively ignoring that report and proposing a pre-emptive changing of the rules.
That is what the Government have done at every turn. They hate opposition. If a council, such as the GLC,


objects to Government policies, it is abolished. The Government are prepared to scrap elections and to change the rules when they find that their proposals are not acceptable. There is no doubt that in Committee the Secretary of State will be changing the Bill drastically to pick up all the details that he knows he has missed and that will be brought to his attention in due course.
If the Bill were enacted in its present form, it would mean the end of a wide range of public information campaigns, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned many of them. Some campaigns I agree with, and others I do not. If the Bill is enacted, Merton's campaign in favour of privatisation will be brought to an end. I am in favour of that campaign being halted in one sense, but if Merton thinks that the campaign is in the interests of its ratepayers, it is right to mount it.
There has been much talk about the money that is being spent by local authorities on so-called propaganda campaigns and publicity budgets. The budget of the City of Westminster, led by Lady Porter, has not been mentioned. Over the two years of her leadership, her publicity budget has increased from £108,000 to more than £500,000—almost a 500 per cent. increase. I have an example of Lady Porter's information sheet, which bears a handsome picture of her on the front page. The information sheet states:
Westminster Action '85 … exclusive interview with Lady Porter.
If Westminster city council cannot obtain an exclusive interview with its own leader, who can? Of course, the information sheet will be stopped if the Bill is enacted. It consists of an anti-GLC diatribe, and if that is what Lady Porter thinks is in the interests of Westminster, she has a right—nay, a duty—to put it out.
My right hon. and hon. Friends talk about and believe in democracy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Good".]—contrary to the weasel words of the Conservative Members. Democracy will be defended by them for as long as it serves their interests. When it threatens their policies or position, it will go out of the window.
Once again, the Government are prepared to destroy out of their blind fear and hatred of opposition. That is what lies at the centre of the Bill. The Bill is a sign of a bullying and stupid Government and it should be rejected.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the Bill, which is broadly in line with a ten-minute Bill that I introduced in July, which was passed on a free vote despite being ably opposed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The hon. Gentleman talked arrant nonsense when he spoke of £7 million of public money being petty cash.

Mr. Tony Banks: I did not say that.

Mr. Leigh: I am sure that the Labour party would have liked a budget of £7 million for the 1983 general election. If its membership were not declining, it would not have to rely on public money to support its campaigns. It is arrant nonsense for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) to say that Pravda would approve of the Bill. It is designed to prevent what happens in the Soviet Union—the people's money being used to peddle one political line.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West talked about Lady Porter. I voted against abolition. I resent my money being used for political campaigns, whether by the Labour party or by the Conservative party. That is not the function of local authorities and I resent such expenditure.
I do not wish to go over the ground that I covered in my ten-minute Bill or in my correspondence with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West in various letters to national newspapers. However, I must reiterate firmly that the purpose of local authorities traditonally is to carry out the functions laid down by Parliament, not to usurp those functions. Local government is the servant of Parliament, not its rival.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West talked about the consensus breaking down. That happened not because of Government actions. Government are not engaged in campaigns paid for by public money to convince the British people of the merits of privatisation of British Gas. The Government are not paying for campaigns to convince the British people that this Bill is a good thing. The consensus in local government has been broken by militants who believe in what they call the local state and who abuse the power and trust given them by Parliament to pursue political objectives of their own.
They seek to negotiate peace treaties with foreign powers; they hold talks with terrorist groups; they pretend, by the ridiculous charades of calling areas nuclear-free zones, to exclude such areas from the defence system properly laid down by Parliament for the protection of the nation; they set up police committees in places where they have no police responsibility; and they pour millions of pounds into the pockets of those whose sole object is to abuse the police and to drive a wedge between those whom we employ to uphold the law and large sections of the community whom the police protect. Above all. the cabals of new-style councillors have set up a monstrous propaganda machine on the rates.
The recent study by Professor David Regan details expenditure on anti-nuclear material. The GLC has spent £3 million in the Greater London area. Manchester has spent £500,000. Although the worst offenders are in the big cities, they are not confined to the big cities. Even in Lincoln Labour councillors are under the delusion that they live in a nuclear-free zone. Scunthorpe has produced a free newspaper. There is no such thing as a free newspaper, any more than there is a free lunch. The ratepayers have to pick up the bill.
The Left argues that preventing councils spending money on political advertising inhibits free speech. It is nonsense to say that preventing one-sided political propaganda, paid for compulsorily by ratepayers of all political opinions, threatens democratic freedoms. On the contrary, it strengthens them by offering protection against the monopoly abuse of position and power by whoever happens to win control of a town hall.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) quoted Thomas Jefferson. We all want to protect minorities. The Bill is aimed at protecting minorities from the tyrannies of whoever happens to control a town hall.

Mr. Boyes: Has the hon. Gentleman read what Widdicombe said on page 37 of the report'? Commenting on the GLC's campaign to protect itself, compared with what other councils had done, he said:
we do not see that it is wrong in principle.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) dealt with that fairly. A political propaganda pamphlet was produced and paid for by the rates. That is happening in London, Newcastle, Leeds and elsewhere. That is why we need the Bill.
In a few respects the Bill is deficient and I hope to see it amended in Committee. First, the Bill prohibits certain activities by councils, but provides no remedy should its provisions be broken. It leaves it up to the citizen who is aggrieved by his council to take action. Thus, the citizen must police and enforce the Bill. How is the citizen to do that?
Hon. Members have talked of district auditors being toothless wonders. That is well illustrated by the grubby little cultural festival of India affair. An attempt was made by the GLC leader to buy votes in Brent. That backfired badly and he tried to circumvent the provisions of the interim provisions legislation. He was caught lying about a breach of contract. There was a ham-fisted attempt at a cover-up, which embarrassed a respectable Hindu group. No blame could be attached to that group. A respectable company was financially embarrassed. Attempts have been made to complain to the district auditor, but it will take weeks, if not months, to investigate. In the meantime, the company is without its money.
The truth is that complaints to district auditors are ineffective in preventing abuses by councils. Indeed, many district auditors refuse to consider complaints until after the offending item appears in the accounts—up to a year after the event by which time the council has won the unfair political advantage that the Bill is designed to prevent.
A ratepayer can apply to the court for an injunction against the council that breaks the Bill's provisions. That means that most local residents who are not ratepayers cannot complain to the court. However, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act sets a precedent in empowering voters rather than ratepayers to apply to the court. The Bill should be amended in Committee to extend that provision to this legislation.
In addition, even those who have the right to sue rarely do so because of the prospect of ruinous costs if they lose. A council has ratepayers' money available to pay for its defence and to pay for the other side's costs if it loses. If no one is prepared to go to court to enforce the Bill's provisions, the Bill will have little effect.
A number of electors are ready to call Livingstone to account over the festival of India affair, but they cannot do so because of the risk that, if they lose on some technicality, the costs would cripple them. The council faces no such threat. Consequently, legislative provisions go unenforced. It would be a pity if this Bill met the same fate.
I urge that the Bill be extended to provide from public funds the costs of actions against delinquent councillors, subject to safeguards to eliminate frivolous cases.
In principle, the Bill will make a valuable contribution to our constitutional law and to the protection of our democratic system, subject to the small amendments that I have mentioned.
As Parliament is the creator of local government and the fount of its power and authority, it behoves Parliament to give the public the means to protect itself when that power is abused. If the Bill is suitably amended, I believe that it will achieve that.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Clause 1 provides for the setting of a rate by a certain date. That is relevant to Liverpool. The Secretary of State said that originally it was relevant to 30 other councils. He said that 13 did not set a rate, but in the end Liverpool was left on its own.
There has been much misinformation about Liverpool city council. The 30 councils which decided not to set a rate by a particular date were acting in line with the Labour party policy agreed in 1984 in a document called "The Defence of Local Democracy, Services and Jobs". That statement was carried by the conference almost unanimously. It said:
Labour local authorities should not act as agents for central government, even if the resulting budget is out of line with Government policy … Non-compliance could lead to some Councils being unable to fix a rate. For others it could mean running out of money for essential services.
I do not want to hear any more statements about Liverpool city council acting out of line with Labour party policies. That was Labour party policy, agreed at the conference. However, eventually Liverpool found itself fighting that battle alone. I want that to be put firmly on the record.
Some right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the Stonefrost report. Paragraph 2.1 is headed:
How Liverpool City Council arrived at its present financial position.
Paragraph 2(3) says:
From 1981–82 to 1984–85 Liverpool's Grant Related Expenditure Assessment increased in cash terms by 8·5 per cent. compared with 14 per cent. for all Metropolitan Districts and 17 per cent. for all authorities. (4) From 1975–76 to 1978–79"—
when the Liberal party, supported by the Conservatives, was in power—
the City Council reduced its expenditure by 6 per cent. in real terms. This resulted in expenditure being 10 per cent less than it would have been had the City Council increased its spending in line with other local authorities. (5) The relatively low spending position of Liverpool in 1978–79 formed the basis of its spending target for 1981–82. Liverpool further reduced its spending towards that target.
Paragraph 2.2 says:
Based on these facts, the Council's case against the Government is that a major contribution to Liverpool's present financial position is the system of targets and penalties.
That is said not by me but by the Stonefrost report, which has been referred to by so many right hon. and hon. Members.
There are differences of opinion about whether the Liverpool councillors should have accepted it. Liverpool councillors are not Militant-dominated. There are probably eight or nine councillors on the city council who support the ideas of Militant. However, there are 48 Labour councillors, of whom about 30 are members of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of them take part in community work for the Church. One of those councillors was killed while he was on holiday in Spain. I attended his requiem mass. The church was full of people because that councillor, Peter Lloyd, was a pillar of the local Roman Catholic community.
Liverpool councillors remain solidly together because they believe that the policies forced upon the city' by this Government have driven it into this position. This Government are responsible for the present crisis—not Liverpool councillors, or Mr. Hatton, or a small group of militants, or a crackpot group of people. Liverpool city councillors are therefore standing firm.
I wish to draw attention to a book whose title is "Liverpool on the Brink". It is written by Michael Parkinson, the director of the centre for urban studies at Liverpool university. I recommend that book to every right hon. and hon. Member. It explains how Liverpool has got into this position. It says:
When the Conservatives took power in 1979 central Government was providing 62 per cent. of the city's net income and the rates over 37 per cent. By 1983 the Government's contribution had dropped to 44 per cent. and the rates had risen to over 55 per cent.
That is what has happened in my city. It also says:
From 1971 to 1985 total employment in the city fell by 33 per cent. in contrast to the national figure of only 3 per cent. And this brought heavy rates of unemployment. In fact, Merseyside has had the highest rate of unemployment of any English conurbation in every decade since the 1950s.
That again is the background to the situation in Liverpool. The book also contains this passage:
The Director of the Government's special Merseyside Task Force, Eric Sorenson, was asked by the select committee why so much attention had been paid to Liverpool's problems in recent years. He replied simply, 'Because they are worse.'
I know Eric Sorenson. He is always on about Liverpool—

Mr. Leigh: So is the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heffer: Yes. I am obsessed by the problems of the people of Liverpool. I am obsessed by the fact that on one council estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) 90 per cent. of the people are living on some form of Government benefit because they are unemployed. I am also obsessed by the fact that Liverpool people still have some of the worst housing in this country. It makes me sick to think that, if the Government had provided an extra £25 million to £30 million for Liverpool, there would have been no problem. However, this Government do not have one iota of compassion, or deep feeling, or understanding. Young people have no possible chance of obtaining employment.
Yes, I am obsessed and I do not deny it. I am obsessed because Liverpool people happen to be my people; I am one of them. When there was almost full employment, I worked alongside them. There were jobs in the shipyards and in the docks and on the big construction sites. Where are those jobs now? Luckily, there are still some jobs in the construction industry.
When the Liberal party was in power in Liverpool no council houses were built, but in the last two years the Liverpool city council, under the Labour party, has built 3,600 council houses. Those council houses were not in the pipeline before the Labour party took office, contrary to the argument of Mr. Trevor Jones.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State has said that he is prepared to meet us tomorrow. I hope that he will be prepared to meet Liverpool Members of Parliament. I am talking about Labour Members, because they requested the meeting. I hope that the Government will not stand entrenched in their position and that they will be prepared to meet the democratically elected representatives of the city of Liverpool.
The Government, quite rightly, feel that they must do something along the lines of what they were elected to do. But so, too, are the Liverpool councillors right to argue that they must fulfil their commitment to their electorate.

Both bodies were elected by the people. God almighty, as rational, civilised people, they should be prepared to meet and discuss ways to overcome the problems.
I hope that such an attitude will arise out of tomorrow's meeting. If it does not, Liverpool will be faced with a serious problem. Although there may be some short-term advantage to the Government if the city is run down and the councillors blamed, in the long term the Government will suffer.

Mr. Derek Spencer: In the town hall in Leicester there is a monster with two heads.

Mr. Tony Banks: Peter Bruinvels.

Mr. Spencer: One of the heads is the information unit and the other is the contracts monitoring unit. That creature, which suddenly emerged in June this year, gives off a dull, Leftist monotone that stretches all over the city. It knows about as much of concern, truth and democracy as a bank robber knows of honesty.
Far from being interested in listening to and conducting a dialogue with other people, there is simply a uniformed barrage of propaganda laid across the city at public expense. Those two organs are aided and abetted by the so-called civic newspaper, the Leicester Link, which howls abuse at the Government on every conceivable opportunity—and it does so on the rates.
We had no sooner swept up the pamphlets about the anti-rate-capping campaign, we had no sooner removed the stickers from every park bench. public vehicle and lawn mower in every part of Leicester, than we were afflicted by a campaign against the Transport Bill.
The experience of Leicester on publicity is typical of many other places. In early 1983, a small unit in the chief executive's department dealt with publicity. It had a handful of staff with a comparatively small budget. By 1984, the staff had increased to 22. This year the unit has almost doubled its numbers and its budgeted expenditure, if it is not stopped, will be almost £250,000.
What has that to do with the Labour party's sudden preoccupation with and interest in truth and democracy? Why is there suddenly an interest which, two years ago, could not be found? How does it come about that the nearer we get to the next general election, the more the Labour party in Leicester appears to be overcome by a compulsive desire to tell what it says is the truth about the Tory Government?
Of course, it is not the truth. Those of us who witnessed local government before the Tory party was elected to power in 1979 know only too well the hollowness of the argument that the Tory party has brought about a change in the relationship between central and local government. Those of us who were in town halls before 1979 had already witnessed at first hand the sea change that was taking place under a Labour Government.
When Ken Livingstone was seeking to be elected as the parliamentary Labour party candidate in Hampstead in 1979—at that time he was the chairman of the housing committee of Camden council—he was distributing what the local newspaper called Livingstone's largesse. Tenants who saw fit to air complaints were sent away with public money to massage their problems in the hope that they might be induced to vote for Mr. Livingstone at the forthcoming general election.
While that was happening, a number of moderates on Camden council were prepared to look the other way. They put forward an acceptable face while Mr. Livingstone got on with his dirty work in a small time way, which subsequently, when he became the leader of the GLC, he was to implement on a much larger scale. Therefore, it is nonsense to say that there is something new afoot. It has been going on for many years. The lesson is that, unless something is done to stop it, it will continue unabated.
Let us consider what Leicester has had to put up with in relation to the Transport Bill. An open day was held, paid for with ratepayers' money, with balloons, stickers, carrier bags and so—on you name it, they had it—given away to try to cultivate a special community identity, or so it was described, for Leicester City Bus. How did that help people who wanted to get across the city? How did it help the elderly to be told that if the Transport Bill became law fares might be increased by more than 30 per cent. and the most essential services run down? That was typical of the misleading propaganda put out at public expense.
However, matters did not rest there. The place chosen to stage the open day was next door to a children's festival being attended by children from 17 schools. The open day had hot dog stalls, ice cream stalls, music festivals and the like to inveigle children and young people into what was nothing more than a political indoctrination session on the rates. That happens time and again throughout the country.
The latest excess relates to the activities of the low pay unit. I was sent a poster to put up at my place of work to recruit those who feel that they are low paid. If I put it up in my office, I would expect to be killed in the rush. I am asked to fill in a form stating my hours of work, how much I am paid, my overtime, and so on. If I need any advice, I must refer to the low pay unit. All that is at public expense. It has been distributed throughout the city without regard to the identity of the recipient.
Of course, the true objective of the low pay unit and the current campaign is not the welfare of the low paid. It is designed, quite nakedly, to attack the Government's social security reforms. The low pay unit and its cosmetic concern for those with low pay merely conceals the true nature of the exercise.
This Bill is necessary. If we want further evidence of that, it can be found in a newspaper put through my door in Camden this week. It advertises a public meeting to be run by the Camden council women's committee in conjunction with the Camden Labour party women's section on strip and body searches of Irish women. It is to be held in the Camden centre. The advertisement, at the bottom, says:
If you would like to attend the meeting and need to pay for a sitter for a child, elderly sick friend or relative claim up to £2 an hour. Form from"—
then it gives a telephone number, which I know from my service on the Camden council is that of the town hall. Such examples are commonplace in Camden, and they must be stopped.
My only question is whether the Bill is man enough for the job. I should have preferred to see a clause relating not to the functions of the authority but limited to the statutory duties placed on it. Anybody who has ever served as a member of a Labour-controlled local authority will know only too well that the Bill will be scrutinised. It will go before leading counsel in the Temple and every dot,

comma, hyphen and syntax will be looked at from every conceivable aspect. If there is the slightest hole in the Bill, it will be crawled through before one can say "district auditor".
I welcome the Bill as a step on the right road. Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I am obsessed by local government, but by the way in which its true purpose is perverted. Like him, I am upset. but I am upset by the way in which otherwise good men go on perverting it and then claim credit for doing so.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I have listened to the debate all the afternoon. A sad aspect of it is the way in which hon. Members' attitudes have been so polarised. For me, one of the saddest things is that there is no recognition, particularly by Conservative Members, that there is a place for local government and that it should be carried out by people who are elected locally and responsible locally, who carry out functions as they perceive them locally.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) was a glaring example of the polarisation, sweeping generalisations and objections on specific issues on which the Bill is based. The Bill derives from a few specific cases that have arisen within local government—I do not judge whether they are good or bad—from which the Government have come up with a spiteful and malevolent Bill that will do far more to destroy local democracy that can be seen at first. The spitefulness has taken the Government down a road that they will rue.
Another disturbing aspect of the debate is an obsession with one or two incidents, which are constantly being quoted by Tory Members. The GLC and the city of Liverpool have the right to inform their electorate in the way in which they have. However, because of the Government's political objections resulting from their losing the argument, they have come up with this tawdry and pathetic Bill.
I live in the constituency that I represent and not in London, like the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South. I am disturbed by the insulting way in which the Government have introduced the Bill before the Widdicombe committee has reported. The Government had said that they would not act prematurely and would wait so that
the Committee's recommendations in their Interim Report cannot be taken to prejudice their findings and broader judgements reached in the light of their appraisal of all the evidence eventually presented to them.
Not only has this undertaking been broken, but the findings of the interim report have been largely ignored. The report concluded that it was acceptable in principle for local authorities to publicise matters of political controversy. The only distinction that was drawn was between material issued in the interests of local authorities and that issued in furtherance of the interest of a political party.
If the Government want to introduce such propaganda, they can do so. Therefore, local government should be allowed to do the same. If the Widdicombe committee is being so treated by the Government, it might as well resign. It is wasting its time, and should no longer be associated with such a transparent charade.
The Bill's proposals mean that local authorities will not be able to publish any material that opposes Government


legislation, however vicious and unjustified. The public will be able to hear only the Government's case. By charging through with this legislation, the Government have shown that they know how indefensible their proposals are.
The Bill is redolent of powers that are used in Russia and South Africa to prevent the public voicing opposition to Government measures. I am amazed at the extent to which the Government are prepared to go to muzzle legitimate dissent by local authorities. That can be appreciated by reading the full text of clause 2, by which local authorities will not be allowed to publish any material that can affect public support for a party,
body, cause or campaign identified with, or likely to be regarded as identified with, a political party.
Any group of people who want to oppose what the local authority may want to voice against the Government could set up a pseudo-political party with which they could be identified. If the Minister does not accept that point, perhaps he will tell me what the identification of a political party will be in the Bill. How long does a political party have to be in existence before it falls within the ambit of the Bill? Can one create an instant political party to prevent spending in a particular way?
The Bill shows the Government's hypocrisy. They claim that they have a code of practice for any publicity into which they enter, as if, by saying that, they prove that the code of practice is good. Besides the advertising for the sale of British Telecom, the Government have spent millions of pounds on politically controversial issues—a fact that has not yet emerged in the debate. Money has been spent on campaigns in favour of council house sales, on the defence policy, particularly with reference to cruise missiles, on the drafting in of reams of civil servants to the Ministry of Defence to propagate the Conservative party's views on nuclear weaponry, on local government financial controls and on various privatisation measures. If ever there were controversial party political issues, those are they. Whose money was used? The taxpayers' money has been used in the same way that the Government are trying to prevent local authorities from spending ratepayers' money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said on publication of the Bill, the Government's,
record of partisanship and the abuse of the public service for overtly political ends is unparalleled. No Government has used the Whitehall machine more to serve narrow party interests.
Local government organisations are solidly against the Bill. Not all those organisations are controlled by the Labour party. The Association of County Councils, which can hardly be called a Labour party organisation, does not want legislative changes in local authorities' powers to provide information. The ACC believes that no change should be made to section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 or to section 137 of the Act that empowers local authorities to incur expenditure for the benefit of ratepayers. The only change that the association would want is that all public sector advertising should be subject to the Advertising Standards Authority's code of practice. If a right is introduced for members of the public to object, it should be extended to all public sector advertising. I am pleased that the Minister is nodding. Perhaps that can be incorporated into future legislation. What about the statutory bodies outside the Bill, which can use resources

to put forward their political viewpoint. Many of them do, including the gas boards, the water boards and the electricity boards.
The Bill is simply a vicious and spiteful attack on local government because the Government lost the battle against the GLC and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. The Association of County Councils has consistently opposed the proposal that the powers of local authorities should be subverted and brought under central control. In April 1982, the ACC stated that any changes in section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 would
represent a quite unnecessary and undesirable change from the present satisfactory operation … The Association … would not wish to see any diminution in the existing scope of S. 137. The reasons for this view are both constitutional and … practical … The new proposals will remove the ability of counties to act …and the new provision replaces a local perception of what is required by a national one.
Once more we shall see the steady erosion of local democracy.
In a letter to the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—the chairman of the executive council of the ACC said:
An abuse of a discretionary power must certainly be capable of effective challenge"—
no one doubts that—
but the better channel for doing so may well lie elsewhere, possibly through the District Audit procedures and the powers of extraordinary audit.
The present law curbs authorities that step outside it and use ratepayers' money for overtly political ends. The law should be exercised as it stands instead of removing a discretionary right of local authorities. That was acknowledged by the Under-Secretary of State and his Department. Why have the Government changed their mind? The only thing that has happened is that the Government have lost the battle with the GLC and the AMA.
Only a few years ago, the Under-Secretary of State said in answer to the ACC's submission:
Local authorities are essentially political bodies elected on political mandates, and run by politicians, and their decisions are inevitablly political in nature. Political considerations must affect the balance of the individual decisions they reach—and that applies to Conservative councils taking decisions on privatisation as much as Labour authorities reaching conclusions on, say, the right to buy. Therefore, we cannot simply stop local authorities acting politically. Nor can we deal with the problem simply by limiting Section 137 … Section 137 is an important discretionary power for local authorities, but … it is just one of a number of discretionary powers which authorities are free to use and abuse, subject always to general legal constraints.
The Government have changed their mind on that matter.
Clause 1 places a duty on local authorities to set a rate by a specific date. That is not unreasonable in itself. Indeed, it could be considered necessary for the proper planning of activities in local government. However, I question the Government's motives in introducing it. If they have such a consuming passion for tidiness and punctuality, will the Minister tell us why they do not implement a more rigorous timetable in announcing rate support grant settlements? For some time, they were produced in November, but lately there has been a slippage, and now there is no guaranteed date for announcing the RSG. The only guideline is that it is normally announced before Christmas. Any delay or uncertainty in announcing the RSG delays the county councils' budget process and reduces the time available to them to finalise the process.
Clause 7, which also worries me, deals with mortgages. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I have some sympathy with the proposition, although I also have reservations. My reservations spring from the fact that the clause demonstrates, and is obviously motivated by, the Government's spite and maliciousness. The proposition that prevents local authorities from selling mortage portfolios without the consent of individual mortgagors would gain some sympathy in my area, because I represent a constituency and an area with almost the highest owner-occupancy in Britain. The south Wales mining valleys have about 75 per cent. owner-occupancy, which is surpassed by west Sussex. Therefore, I am well aware of the problems of selling leases and mortgage portfolios with—out the consent or knowledge of the occupiers. The problems of leasehold disposal are well known to hon. Members. But if this is such a desirable development, why do not the Government extend it beyond local government? Why do they not allow everyone to participate in this great freedom? Why not impose similar conditions on building societies, banks, finance houses and the rest of the Tory party's friends in this game? Will the Minister explain his intentions in this area?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, this is a spiteful Bill. It is the response of a Government who have lost all the arguments during the past few years and who can think of no other course than this shabby, mean Bill.

Mr. John Powley: Let no one be under any illusion about my support for local government. I would not have spent 10 years as a county councillor if I did not support local government. I spent 12 years on a district council, three as its leader, and I would not have done that had I not been a supporter of and a believer in local government. But how I wish that the local government scene today was similar to the scene when I entered it in 1967. In those days, one had great respect for one's colleagues—even one's opposition colleagues—on a local authority, because we were all involved in local government for the good of everyone in our local authority area. There was not as much party political partisanship as there is today. Local government was not manipulated for party political purposes as it is today. I very much regret the direction in which local government has gone during the 18 years that I have been closely associated with it. Many right hon. and hon. Members may share those sentiments.
There are several reasons for this politicisation of local government. The obvious one is that, because the Labour party has been in opposition for the majority of that time, it sees the local government base as its only base. A less obvious one —I have mentioned it previously in the House—is due to the new breed of local councillor, and the Local Government Act 1972 has been responsible for certain developments in that respect. I fear that some people who are now elected to serve on local authorities regard the interest of the area as secondary to their party political ambitions.
Unfortunately, many councillors are now paid by one local authority but are elected members of another. In other words, they are paid while taking up their full-time occupations in the area of the authority of which they are elected members. That has also led to the new breed of councillor.
A new way of operating councils has also developed. I have knowledge of authorities in which the policies determined by the controlling Labour group are not determined by the councillors. Hon. Members who have been involved in local government will know that party groups meet before council meetings to determine the policy that will be adopted on the issues of the day. I was the leader of the group on my authority and the members regularly met a couple of days before the council meeting. However, at our group, only the elected Conservative councillors were present, and only they made the policy decisions and, when we were the majority group, implemented them on the council.
I understand, however, that that is not the procedure with Labour groups. When they meet in a political context, their groups are considerably enhanced, and include trade union officials, representatives from the wards and members of general management committees. Decisions are then taken about what the council will decide. Thus, the decisions that are taken in the council chamber originate in the Labour clubs. That has brought about a new position in local authorities. Those taking the decisions do not have responsibility for the decision-making.
I have witnessed the way in which, over the years, moderate Labour councillors were eased out, because they implemented decisions that were to the benefit of the area without intense regard for the politics involved. They were pensioned off, as it were, in favour of intense political councillors, usually of the Left variety, who got elected to safe seats, while the more moderate councillors gradually disappeared because their policies did not suit the new militancy in the Labour party. That has undermined local democracy and accountability.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) rather gave the game away when he said that if the Labour party was in power it would abandon the present procedures and introduce new legislation which would, blatantly, allow politics on the rates. That was my interpretation of his remarks. It would mean that Labour groups in control of the council would be able blatantly to use ratepayers' money for party political purposes to get themselves re-elected. That is how the system could be exploited.
Such is my feeling for local government that I have regretted having had to vote for local government legislation since 1983. I was proud to be a member of the Rates Bill Committee, but I regret that the legislation was necessary. A Rates Bill would never have been necessary in the late 1960s under the old system of local government. The abolition of the GLC would never have been necessary. There was a great deal more sense and responsibility then. I regret that we have to pass this local government legislation.
We have to avoid exploitation of the rates. The leader of the council in Norwich—that fine city in East Anglia —is reported as saying:
few people would defend ratepayers' money being spent on Party political propaganda.
She said:
No one has ever suggested that this council has operated in this way.
How short memories are! In 1980, when the Government passed the Housing Bill to allow council houses to be sold to those tenants who wished to buy, my local authorities opposed the move to the end. A housing commissioner had


to be put in. That political act by my local authority cost my constituents about £70,000. It was nothing but a party political campaign to oppose a law passed by Parliament.
No one could dispute the fact that the Clay Cross episode was another party political issue at the expense of the ratepayer. Is it a coincidence that my local authority spends money on its nuclear-free zone and that it spent money supporting the miners during the strike? Is it a coincidence that it mounts an open day just a week or two before local government elections to advertise and to impress the voters? That is nothing other than party political manipulation at the expense of the ratepayers.
To hear some Opposition Members speak one would think that in the Bill we are trying to make local government believe in behaving secretly. No one would believe that our committees and council meetings are open to the public. Those meetings can be reported openly as any municipal correspondent sees fit, showing what the local authority is doing and the policies in which it believes. There is nothing to hide. We want there to be no party politics of any colour on the rates issue. Let us return to local democracy for the people with a little less politicisation of local government.

Mr. Peter Pike: I disagree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley). He believes that the lines pursued by a Labour council are party political but that those pursued by a Conservative council are not. I was a councillor 23 years ago in the urban district of Merton and Morden in south London. That was solidly controlled by the Conservative party. It was political to the extent that a capable man who had been on the council for over 20 years was not permitted to be chairman of the council because he was a member of the Labour party. All that council's actions were strongly political. It finally conceded, when it was to be wound up because of the London reorganisation in 1963 and 1964, and allowed him to be chairman for the penultimate year. It is fallacy to regard Tory councils as non-political.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) tried to give the impression that the Labour party has changed considerably and is now a party of extremists. That is absolute nonsense. The present party of extremism is the Conservative party that happens to be in government. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred to local government under the rule of Morrison and other people of that era. He tended to give the impression that they were moderate. If Clem Attlee and Herbert Morrison were leading the party today and putting to the electorate the same programme as they did in 1945, the Conservative party that regarded Clem Attlee as a moderate would, because of the passage of time, be calling him an extremist.
Local government should have the right to defend services and publicise its activities. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) referred to the leaflet on buses and transport in his area. I should like to refer to the leaflet published by Lancashire county council in defence of an important section of local government service. There was nothing in that leaflet that was untrue. It put a fair case to the people whom it represented and it was right that it should be able to do that. Now that that

Bill is an Act, the passage of time will show that what Lancashire county council and many other bodies publicised in leaflets and what we pointed out to the electorate was true and not as the Government portrayed.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) tried to highlight complaints about the Greater London council. If the Government believed that those complaints were correct, why did they deprive the GLC electorate of an election? That is what matters; that is democracy. If the electorate agreed with the hon. Lady, it would have said to the Labour representatives controlling the GLC, "We do not want you. You are out." The Government did not want an election because the people would have voted for the Labour party and put it back into office.
In 1979, when the Conservative party was elected, it said that it wanted more freedom in local government. I find it amazing to recall that statement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, this is the 12th local government Bill since the Government took office. We have seen measures to curtail capital expenditure and revenue expenditure. Local government has more shackles put on it every year that the Conservative Government are in office. It is time that we thought again. Many local councillors are becoming disillusioned because they cannot implement the services for which they campaigned and were elected to put into effect. A local council should be able to say to the hundreds of people who apply for improvement and repair grants that it cannot even accept the applications and that they cannot have a grant because the Government are not making sufficient money available. Why should the local authority accept responsibility for the Government's action?
If we cannot provide enough sheltered and residential homes for the elderly because of Government policy, why should not local authorities be able to tell the electors that that is the position and say to them, "Blame the Government, not us"?
The Bill is not just vicious; it is daft. Clause 2 provides:
(1) A local authority shall not publish any material which, in whole or part, appears to be designed to affect, or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for—

(a) a political party, or
(b) a body, cause or campaign identified with, or likely to be regarded as identified with, a political party."
If that is what the Government intend, it will mean that local authorities cannot publicise anything that they do. Whichever party is in control of a local authority—be it Conservative, Liberal, SDP or Labour—will try to implement policies for the benefit of the electors whom it represents. The councillors will want to be re-elected, but they will not be able to publicise what they have done in the council's annual report or in the leaflet that goes with the rates bill, because it will be seen as trying to gain support for the party in office.
At the last election, about 40 per cent. of the votes were cast for the Conservative party. The majority of votes were cast for the Liberal, SDP and Labour parties. Those parties took almost the same line in the Transport Bill Committee. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that more people were against the Transport Bill than were in favour of it. Why should we not, therefore, be able to say what we wanted to do?
I have mentioned the leaflet that was published by Lancashire county council. Of the 14 districts in Lancashire, 13 took part in the campaign. Only three


authorities in Lancashire are Labour-controlled, but the others participated in the campaign to some degree. Local authorities have the right to defend the services that they have been elected to implement. They have the right to make people aware of what the Government are doing. If people disagree with what the controlling party on the local authority is doing, they will say, "We have had enough. We will put the other party in."

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Labour lost.

Mr. Pike: The Tory party, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State do not believe in local democracy or local government. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) from a sedentary position said that the Labour party lost the county election. Yes, it did, but the result was that it is still the largest party on the Lancashire county council.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Pike: The county council election results in Lancashire were extremely good, because, when the new boundaries were drawn at the time of local government reorganisation, the Tory party designed the boundaries so as to prevent Labour from ever winning control of the county. The Tories put the Labour areas in the south of the county into Merseyside or Greater Manchester. They had to find somewhere else for Warrington, the only Labour area in the middle, because it might have made Lancashire Labour. They pushed Warrington into Cheshire. The result was a victory for the Labour party in the local elections.
The Bill is vicious. I hope that it is withdrawn or defeated on Second Reading. If not, I hope that it suffers major amendment.

Dr. Ian Twinn: The tradition of responsible behaviour in local government has broken down in some parts of the country. The Labour party has rejected the normal conventions of conduct in local government. In Edmonton, we look over the boundary at the behaviour of the leader of Haringey council, Bernie Grant, and we see the behaviour in local government that the Labour party condones. The Labour party has hijacked ratepayers' cash for party political aims. It is playing its own party political games with the taxpayers' money. We see the results of that in London and other cities. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) may say, "Bullshit". [Interruption.] My lip reading must be faulty. I am sure he did not say that and I withdraw that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman may have said rubbish or something like that. The truth of the matter is that that is what the Labour party is doing in local government.
I welcome clause 1 of this Bill, which imposes a duty to set a rate by 1 April. We have seen in London the consequences of councils not setting rates within a reasonable time. Not to set the rate in a reasonable time so that money comes in in a steady flow must be a form of madness or the result of the worst kind of cynicism about the public service. This year Southwark council lost an income of £500,000 through not setting the rate. The same thing happened in Lambeth and in other local councils.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) that there is a great worry

in London about the response to be gained from the district auditor. The district auditor seems to have no teeth, and he appeared to be unwilling to act swiftly against the councils of inner London when they were behaving irresponsibly earlier this year in setting a rate. I encourage my right hon. Friend to consider at the Committee stage giving this Bill some teeth to ensure that councils face a penalty for not setting a rate.
Part 2 of the Bill is the meat of the proposals and I am sure that all Conservative Members join in my welcome for the proposal to cut down what had been a terrible growth in advertising, pamphlets, so-called newspapers and brochures which now stream through our letter boxes in London and in other cities. The growth in advertising and political propaganda is out of control. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) said, originally innocent powers have been usurped by the Labour party to be used for party political gain.
People who often face a life of political opposition in our inner cities in the Conservative party, the Social Democratic party or the Liberal party see money from their ratepayers being spent against the interests of those ratepayers to consolidate the position of one party which, as in the case of the London borough of Southwark, does not even have majority voting support from the electorate. Such propaganda is a most objectionable development in local government and is the spending of ratepayers' money for narrow party political interests.
Of course, this practice is not limited to local councils. It has spread much wider. It has spread to local voluntary groups, which are set up, often as front organisations, by the Labour party to spend more ratepayers' money to consolidate the position of the Labour party in particular areas. Perhaps I could mention two examples from the London borough of Southwark. I attempted, unsuccessfully, to become an elected member of that authority and have always followed its deliberations with great interest.
One of the organisations in the borough that I have always followed with interest is Southwark Entertainments. I do not know why Southwark council should spend ratepayers' money on running an entertainment business. In early November, it organised a bonfire and fireworks party in Peckham Rye in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). The entertainment was widely publicised and a leaflet was put around the borough of Southwark encouraging people to go. It was a pleasant, attractive leaflet, printed in Labour party colours. Unfortunately, when it was opened it was found to be full of party political propaganda.
That was paid for by the ratepayers of Southwark. but that was not all. The grand finale of the bonfire night was not some beautiful display of, for example, a fairy castle in fireworks. It was a party political message in fireworks which lit up across Peckham Rye and across Dulwich. It shocked and angered parents who had taken their children to watch what was advertised as an innocent bonfire and fireworks party. Parents were extremely cross that party politics had been brought into something like that. It was the most cynical misuse of the ratepayers' money.
An example of indirect spending by Southwark was the allocation of money to the Southwark youth festival. The festival was sponsored by Southwark and was run by the youth trade union rights campaign. The campaign was so Left-wing that it was chucked out of the Walworth road headquarters of the Labour party by the Leader of the


Opposition. That festival of pop groups was very interesting for those who went to it. It was not about pop groups; it was about naked party political propaganda on the rates. That is another example of the abuse of ratepayers' money by the Labour party.
I am pleased to support the measure and to think that it will be on the statute book by next May to stop the sort of misuse of ratepayers' money that we have seen in London.

Mr. Jack Straw: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on an inadvertently entertaining speech. If he needs lip-reading lessons, I recommend my own teacher of lip-reading at the ILEA-financed City Literary Institute.
It has been a good debate. Many of my hon. Friends missed a peach of a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). If any of my hon. Friends were frightened before the start of the debate about the implications of the Bill, they will now, having sat through the speeches of Conservative Members, be scared to death. It is clear that what Conservative Members think is in the Widdicombe report exists only in their fevered imagination. In speech after speech we had the reiteration of the old adage of the Conservative party, "I am not political, I am a Conservative". In their view, the term "political activities" applies only to the Opposition.
This is the first occasion when the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) has appeared as the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government. He made a memorable winding-up speech in July. He is one of the handful of people who understand the rate support grant system, and his appointment as Minister of State is well-deserved.
The Bill falls into four distinct parts. The least controversial is part IV, which provides for the payment of attendance allowances to members of ILEA and elected members of joint authorities established under the Local Government Act 1985, which received Royal Assent only four months ago. Clause 10 corrects an omission in the Act and we shall, of course support it.
Part III provides that local authorities may transfer mortgages only with the written consent of the mortgagor, and effectively prohibits authorities from entering into mortgage deals where the person or institution buying an authority's mortgage book can at a later date transfer it back to the authority concerned.
We shall examine the proposals in detail in Committee but there are two points that must be made now. The first is that clause 7 has retrospective effect to 24 July this year. Retrospective legislation should never be taken lightly, especially where, by such provisions as these, Parliament makes unlawful acts which were previously lawful. Indeed, it was the very Secretary of State who announced the proposal, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who, as a young and thrusting Back Bencher, warned of the dangers of retrospection in a forensic speech. He knows all about slippery slopes. He said:
If it is still legitimate to quote Virgil in this House, Facilis descensus Averni, which can be roughly, but not inaccurately, translated as 'retrospective legislation is a damned slippery

slope'. Let the House dig its heels in and say that it will have no more of it".—[Official Report, 2 March 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1264.]
In this case—

Dr. Cunningham: Look what happened to him.

Mr. Straw: —there is no justification for making the measure retrospective because the mischief with which this provision aims to deal is small.
Our second objection to this Bill is that it is another example of local authorities being treated less favourably than institutions in the private sector occupying a similar position. If local authorities are to be prevented from making transfers without the consent of the householder at the time the transfer is made, so too should building societies and private landlords.
Part I of the Bill of requires that rating authorities should make their rates before 1 April. The Scottish authorities and the precepting authorities in England, like the counties, already have statutory deadlines by which they must set a rate. These have worked well in the past. We did not oppose the establishment of those deadlines and we shall not oppose the principle of this part of the Bill. We shall, of course reserve the right to make detailed comments in Committee on the operation and drafting of the measure.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Government must recognise, as the Audit Commission has powerfully pointed out, that they have an equally powerful responsibility to help the local authority budgetary process by giving local authorities far greater notice of Government decisions that profoundly affect them, including the rate support grant and HIP allocation. The time scale that the Government impose on local authorities undermines effective planning and leads to great inefficiency and waste of resources.
Part II of the Bill is innocuously described as "Local Authority Publicity". We had a rehearsal of this debate in May 1984 on a ten-minute Bill moved by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold). then a humble Back Bencher and now translated to the august position, on which I congratulate her, of Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment.

Mr. Tony Banks: Hasn't she done well!

Mr. Straw: It may have been because of that debate. The hon. Lady's argument was well dealt with, in a witty and effective speech, by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who mentioned the precedent set on 6 May 1782, when the House refused to pass Rumbold's Pains and Penalties Bill.

Mr. Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman did not make it to the ministerial team.

Mr. Straw: In the debate of 1984 the hon. Lady said:
At present, a local authority may provide—by whatever means it considers suitable—information relating to the services that it provides for its ratepayers. I believe that that is absolutely right.
She went on:
Indeed, it is a fundamental tenet of good local government that councils should be required to explain openly the priorities that they set for local services.
The only restraint that I wish to impose on the section is on using money raised through taxes and rates for party political purposes."—[Official Report, 16 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 370.] If that was all that was at issue in this Bill there would be no argument. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said earlier, the official evidence of the Labour


party in the interim report of the Widdicombe inquiry used almost exactly the same words as the hon. Lady. The party said:
The Labour party has always agreed that ratepayers' money should not be used for explicit party political purposes, for example, in support of named candidates or in support of the Labour group or the Conservative group. Information moneys should properly be used to support and explain the policy of the authority as a whole.
This Bill goes far wider than anything that the hon. Lady claimed to have in mind, which is why all the local authority associations, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, oppose it.
This Bill makes a mockery of the recommendations of the interim report of the Widdicombe inquiry and unless fundamentally amended will undermine the freedom of expression of all local authorities and local councillors who dare to have views different from this Government.
Of the five members of the Widdicombe inquiry, two thought that the majority of members had gone too far. Sir Lawrence Boyle refused to sign the main interim report and Mr. Peter Newsam entered a note of dissent. However, even the Widdicombe majority recognised that local authorities have the right to express dissent. It said:
particularly in times of wide political differences, that our political system should accommodate the free expression of opposing views … In the recent context that includes issuing information about abolition and about rate capping.
In speech after speech we have heard Conservative Members denying the right of authorities, who are directly affected by the abolition and rate-capping measures, to express a view publicly on their opposition to those measures. The Widdicombe inquiry also rejected the ludicrous notion, contained in the Department of the Environment's evidence, that a distinction could be drawn between
material of a political and a non-political nature.
The committee explicitly endorsed the view of the then Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils which said:
Local authorities are essentially political bodies elected on political mandates, and run by politicians. Political considerations must affect the balance of the individual decisions they reach—and that applies to Conservative councils taking decisions on privatisation as much as Labour authorities reaching conclusions on, say, the right to buy. Therefore, we cannot simply stop local authorities acting politically.
The Government have ignored all that and, through clause 2, would prohibit the expression of political views by a terrifyingly wide provision. Clause 2 does not prohibit just the publication of any material that
appears to be designed to affect … public support for a political party,
but also prohibits any material designed to affect public support for
a body, cause or campaign identified with, or likely to be regarded as identified with a political party.
It gets worse. Clause 2 establishes a subjective catch-all test which, on the best advice that we have received, seems likely to prohibit authorities from entering the debate in any area of political controversy. By that test, material that
can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect, public support for

(a) a political party, or
(b) a body, cause or campaign identified with, or likely to be regarded as identified with, a political party"
is also prohibited. The question that flows from this is, what will authorities be allowed to say? As the Association of County Councils correctly said, local authorities are political organisations. There is scarcely a single decision

of any moment made by any authority in the land when the consequences of that decision upon public support for or against the political party in control of the council is not an important factor. Whether it is a matter of whether the opening hours of a public library should be reduced, or whether a bus stop should be moved, to the size of the rate increase, or the council housing programme, councillors ask themselves, "How will this decision affect public support for the political party of which I am a member?" Rightly so, for sensitivity to the electorate lies at the heart of the democratic process.

Mr. Marlow: Why does not the hon. Gentleman understand that local councillors are entitled to get on local radio and to stand up in council and to get their views into the press? They can put their political views across—they do not need bucketloads of ratepayers' money, which should be spent on services, to do so.

Mr. Heffer: I am sick of seeing Lady Porter.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend says that he is sick of seeing Lady Porter's photograph. As a ratepayer in Westminster, he is entitled to be, because Westminster city council has put out hundreds of sheets of propaganda in support of the abolition of the GLC. It is entitled to do so.
We are not talking about oodles of money. The amount of money that local authorities have spent on what is alleged to be party political campaigning is tiny compared with the abuse of the Government and Civil Service machine in support of the partisan interests of this Government.
Widdicombe acknowledged that local authorities were fully justified in campaigning against abolition and ratecapping. Both were bipartisan campaigns. The Conservative group on the GLC opposed abolition and all of the local authority associations oppose the Rates Act 1984. However, in voicing their legitimate opposition to those policies, those authorities were bound to affect public support for the Government, irrespective of whether they wanted to. Opposition to the Transport Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned, is another case in point. According to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), what Leicester city council had to say against the Transport Bill is somehow in support of a political party and should therefore be prohibited.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It was in Lancashire.

Mr. Straw: I know what happened in Lancashire—with the support of the Conservative group the council drew attention to the terrifying consequences of the Transport Bill. Are authorities to be denied the right to represent their people, because that seems to be the implication? Recently Birmingham city council campaigned to site the grand prix road race in its area, and it is now campaigning to host the Olympic games. Is it to be denied the opportunity to campaign in that way? The Minister shakes his head, but in doing so the authority uses its wide powers under section 142, which are about to be wholly constricted by the Bill.
The Government have ignored the Widdicombe committee in another respect. It was argued before the committee that section 142 should be restricted solely to giving information about local authorities' specific services, but the committee said explicitly that the present scope of section 142, enabling an authority


to provide information on matters relating to local government",
was not too wide, and should stand.
The report continued
We think that local authorities should be entitled to inform those living in their areas of the consequences of proposed changes in or affecting local government. In the past, it is clear that the abolition of authorities, or boundary changes, have been regarded as legitimate areas of concern for local authorities. The fight put up by the little County of Rutland … (or in Scotland, Fife) is perhaps the best known example. Under its conventions, the Government of the day is entitled to provide information about its proposed legislation and its likely effect: it seems to us only equitable that bodies affected, in this case local authorities, should have the right to provide information in reply.
Again, that is ignored. Section 142 is to be restricted solely to information relating to the functions of the authority.
Leaving aside arguments about the scale, tone and presentation of publicity, does the Minister not agree with Widdicombe that the new restriction on section 142 would have prevented local authorities from effectively voicing their opposition to rate capping or abolition, and would prevent them from voicing their opposition to any forthcoming controversial contents of their Green Paper on the reform of the rates? If not, what is the purpose of clauses 2 and 3, and why have they been drawn so widely?
Given the extent of the opposition from local authorities and all local authority associations, it was a surprise to hon. Members present to listen to the Liberal spokesman—throughout the debate there has not been a single SDP Member present. The speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was extraordinary, even for him, in terms of the arguments he advanced in favour of the proposition with which he finally concluded—that he and the alliance would vote in favour of the Bill. It is surprising in two respects.
In the Association of County Councils, the Liberals have opposed the Bill. On 17 October 1985 the leading Liberal county councillor in Lancashire, a national figure, as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) will confirm, Councillor Tony Greaves, who runs the Association of Liberal Councillors, spoke and voted in favour of a resolution by Lancashire county council rejecting the majority report of Widdicombe and supporting the minority report.
I must tell my hon. Friends who missed the gem of a speech from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey the arguments that he advanced in support of the Bill. He said that legislatively the Bill was a minefield, but that he would vote in favour of it. That was him at his softest. He then said that the Bill was dangerous and threatened democracy, but that he would vote in favour of it. He said that clause 4 was horrendous and arbitrary, but that he would vote in favour of the Bill. He said of clause 2, the centrepiece of the Bill, that it was appalling and extreme, but that he would vote in favour of the Bill. I warn my hon. Friends to beware of Liberal Members bearing gifts.
This Bill has been born not of principle but of malice and neurosis. It is Thatcher's revenge for the fact that, while the Government won the vote on rate capping and the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan counties, they spectacularly lost the arguments. Nothing lays bare the Government's motives more than their double standards and the contrast between the restrictions they are now to impose on the freedom of expression of local authorities

compared with the increasing licence they have taken to abuse the Exchequer's purse in support of the narrow, partisan interests of the Conservative party.
A sum of £2·5 million was spent on publicising the right to buy. Was not that publicity designed to "affect public support for a political party"? Just before the last election, the Secretary of State for Defence established a whole unit of civil servants explicitly to campaign against CND and in favour of the Tories' defence policies. Was not that in favour of a political party? A total of £70 million a year is spent on what are euphemistically described as Government information services, which are increasingly subject to direct control by the Prime Minister's press officer, Mr. Bernard Ingham. Is not that massive sum spent in support of a political party?
What are we to make of an announcement in the Financial Times on Saturday—the Secretary of State missed this one—under the heading, "Government plans advertising jobs campaign"? It said:
Three agencies have been invited by the Central Office of Information … to present suggested campaigns in three weeks' time … The rush to appoint an agency, according to the department, is to tie in with current related campaigns".
No bones are made about the purpose of this expenditure by the British taxpayer. The report baldly states:
The Government is to mount an advertising campaign to publicise its actions to counter unemployment".
Is not that campaign plainly designed to affect public support for a political party? Is not it designed to persuade the British public that, far from having the worst unemployment record of any of the major industrialised countries, unemployment is going down rather than up? Is not that using taxpayers' money to mount the start of the Conservative's general election platform, and would not such a campaign be specifically prohibited under clause 2 of the Bill if a local authority tried to run anything like it?
The Government established the Widdicombe inquiry with the aim of "strengthening local democracy". What a mockery they have made of that aim and of the Widdicombe report. Democracy is about according rights to those with whom one profoundly disagrees, and rights are not rights unless they can be fully exercised. This Bill strikes at the heart of the most important right of all—the right to express dissent and the right to be heard doing so. It strikes at the heart of local democracy, and it must be opposed.

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government (Mr. William Waldegrave): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for his kind words about my right hon. Friend's promotion. I should like to thank also the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for his kind words about myself. I am sure that it is the quality of our opposition that has led to our dramatic rise. I also thank the hon. Member for Copeland for his generous words about my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). They will be much appreciated.
After that things went downhill. The Opposition gave a most curious performance. There are two plans to their speeches—A and B. They shift from one to the other, depending on how they are doing. Plan A is to complain about the end of local government as we know it and the silencing of the voice of democracy—of Livingstone, Hatton, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr.


Banks), and so on. It is argued that the great political campaigns are now at an end and that the voice of local democracy has been stilled. The hon. Member for Copeland, with his well-known enjoyment of the countryside, described it as a silent spring.
When that plan is not going well, the other plan is to say that it is all unnecessary because there is no political campaigning at all. The Opposition then argue that all this is nonsense, that the Bill affects nothing and it is quite unnecessary.
There is something of a contradiction between these two arguments. It is either the end of social civilisation as we know it for the 12th time or whatever, or it does not really affect anything because it is all quite unnecessary.
The hon. Member for Copeland developed that a little. He said that perhaps a little bit of a baby was born from these publicity budgets. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West put paid to that, because he put the figure of £7,676,000 on his particular baby, and that seems to be quite a considerable baby. The hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) tried that line, too, and said that it is all de minimis; the councils do not spend very much. Luckily for me, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, as always, was present—although he has slipped away now—and gave us the figures.
Much the same arguments were deployed about the other principal parts of the Bill, in particular the dates for a rate and mortgage sales. Apparently, on the one hand, they are unnecessary because all local authorities are responsible. On the other hand, they are said to be the most terrible infringement of local authority rights. Labour Members cannot have it both ways. The truth, as many of my hon. Friends said, is that most local authorities will be quite unaffected by the Bill, because they already carry out their affairs in a way that coincides with the traditions of the Bill. But, sadly—and the hon. Members for Copeland and for Blackburn probably already know this better than any other hon. Member because they have had certain discussions recently with their colleagues in Liverpool—sweet reason and consensus politics in some parts of the local authority world simply do not work. If the House needed a reminder of that today—and I do not think it does—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) provided one. For some obscure reason, unknown to me, he was bitten, in terms of the factions of the Left, by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, and that gives us hope for the future.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) expressed the view that we have moved out of a world where traditional conventions work. That is sad, but true. Again, in admirable speeches, my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant), for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) have emphasised that view.
It was possibly the saddest moment in the debate when my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South said that the old concept of public service in local government seems to be dead in so many authorities. He had gone into local authority in pursuit of public service, as had many hon. Members, but when he was saying that a voice from the Opposition said "How naive." If that is naivety, I pay tribute to it, because it is a spirit of service that has given local government its reputation. It is, of course, by trading

on that reputation for impartiality that councillors want now to fight their political campaigns. In that cry of "How naive" there was a clear definition of what has gone wrong.
One of the least controversial aspects of the Bill concerns attendance allowances. Nobody seems to mind giving more money to those who serve on the ILEA—undoubtedly they deserve it. Then there is 'date for a rate'. I was glad to have the support of the Opposition Front Bench on this issue, and I have no doubt that its occupants will question me about the details. We believe it to be a sensible step to take. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the proposals will strengthen from the district auditor, who will have to establish whether there has been a loss and whether that loss is wilful. In establishing whether the loss has been wilful, it will assist him greatly if the dates have been passed. This is a useful step.
As for mortgages—

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that, like the hon. Member for Blackburn, I should not give way. Otherwise, I shall run out of time, but—[interruption.]

Mr. Straw: I did give way.

Mr. Waldegraive: Well then, I shall too.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The district auditor's teeth are fewer than many hon. Members realise. I raised with him the problem of Derbyshire county council printing school stationery containing a political slogan to the effect that the county council supports nuclear-free zones. It seems to be far worse to misuse education to subject children to propaganda than to use money for advertising. Will the Bill 'prevent Derbyshire county council from misusing education in that way? If it will not in its present form, will my hon. Friend consider amending it in Committee?

Mr. Waldegrave: Specific cases are better examined in Committee when there is time to debate them in detail. I hope that examples of the sort that my hon. Friend is talking about will be outlawed. The district auditor should not be dismissed. He carries out his duties separately and independent of Government. It became clear during the debate that some Labour Members consider him to be rather less toothless than do some of my hon. Friends.

Dr. Cunningham: If, under a future Government, an inquiry into local government reorganisation recommended the abolition of the shire counties, is the Minister saying that they would not be able to campaign against that proposal?

Mr. Waldegrave: I did not take that to be my hon. Friend's example. I am sure that we shall debate these issues in Committee. If a campaign against a proposal to abolish the shire counties were carried out in a non-party political way, that would be perfectly proper. Labour Members seem to have missed the fact that the Bill is aimed at authorities using ratepayers' money for party political campaigns. There will be plenty of scope within the rules for local government to put across information about its concerns. Many of the campaigns that have come to our notice during the past year or so will be outlawed.
The Government are in agreement with the arguments of the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for


Blackburn on mortgages. When we were considering the abolition Bill, as it then was—the Local Government Bill—in Committee they said that mortgages should be transferable only to residuary bodies, which is fair enough. I do not think that the retrospective point is real. Transfers that had taken place by 23 July, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his announcement, will not be affected, and no one will lose any vested right. I am glad that that was welcomed by the hon. Member for Rhondda. I think that there will be some cross-party support for the principle.
The hon. Members for Rhondda and for Blackburn, in effect, say, "Why not extend the provision more widely?" That argument cannot be directed to building societies, because you could not compel someone to join a particular society. I am not sure that we should be too chary about saying that in this area the public sector should behave rather better than the private sector. That is an argument that we often hear advanced by Labour Members.
Despite what has been said by Labour Members, the steps that we are taking in the Bill are based on paragraph 228, and others, of the Widdicombe report. I shall not quote paragraph 228 in its entirety, but part of it reads:
We wish to rule out such practices as …
(d) publicity campaigns, the scale of which, given their political context, may have the effect of advancing the interests of a particular party even though the subject matter is not overtly party political.
I have no doubt that I shall face pressure from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends to go further than the Bill as it stands. The Government could have brought forward such proposals, but, instead, we have introduced in good faith what we believe to be a sensible plan of action that is based on the intentions set out in the Widdicombe report.
There is a certain irony in the sudden conversion of the hon. Member for Blackburn to the Widdicombe report. When it first became available, the hon. Gentleman did not care for it at all. He issued a press statement in which he claimed that it was weak in its analysis and potentially dangerous in its conclusions. I am glad that he has now come to the conclusion that it is a sensible basis for action. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) went a step further. In contributing to the debate he raised its tone by deploying some Shakespearean quotations. When I saw him in his place, with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West sitting behind him, and listened to the eloquence of his opening sentences, I thought:
here's grace and a cod-piece; that's a wise man and a fool.
As the right hon. Gentleman continued, he seemed to step further back in King Lear:
Pat he comes, like the catastrophe of the old comedy".
The right hon. Gentleman gave us quite a long account in describing the need to set up a committee. We set up a committee and it produced an 84-page report. The right hon. Gentleman, after quite a prolonged speech, ended with a slightly unfair and rather offensive attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I drifted back to Richard II, and thought:
I wasted time, and now time wastes me.
The point about the voluntary organisations and the Birmingham grand prix seems to have been missed by the Opposition. That is understandable because they read only the briefs handed to them. The definition of political

activity comes from the Companies Act 1985 which goes back to the Companies Act 1967, passed by a Labour Government.
There will be plenty of room under section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 for local authorities to distribute proper information about their activities. They will be able to publicise the services offered by voluntary organisations which provide a bona fide service in their area. There is no need for simulated panic and horror stories. Birmingham's grand prix campaign will be safe under the Bill.
The Bill is aimed at the party political misuse of local government information. That is the reason for the uproar and caterwauling. If we were not hitting the target that we hoped to hit, not so many Labour Members would have attended today's debate—and only a dozen or so have attended anyway.
Honest Opposition Members—there are plenty of them—know that there is a real problem. For example, Ms. Margaret Pedler runs a Labour propaganda organisation called the local government information unit. She said that what we were doing was a disgrace because the Bill might make it more difficult for her propaganda to be funded from the rates. She said that we were using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That lets the cat out of the bag. Who is this nut? I think that she is being offensive. She cannot surely be referring to the great and good Mr. Livingstone or the great and good Mr. Hatton. She has let slip that all sensible people on the Labour side know that there is a good nut to crack. One receives so many nods and winks on the matter from moderate Labour people that it is quite embarrassing.
I do not apologise for employing a sledgehammer rather than a feather duster to crack the nut. I am not sure that we would make much progress with Mr. Hatton, for example, with a feather duster. Perhaps the hon. Member for Copeland has been tickling him somewhere. These matters have to be dealt with clearly and decisively by the House. That is exactly what we are doing.
The other way of checking whether we are on the right lines is to discover who is against us. If certain dogs do not bark in the night, I think that we should go back to the drawing board to see whether we can make them bark.
We must study The Guardian. A Mr. Delaney wrote to The Guardian saying that this was disgraceful and frightening. We discovered that Mr. Delaney was one or other of the Mr. Delaneys of Delaney, Fletcher and Delaney, the advertising agency which publicises Ms. Margaret Pedler and her local government information unit. We were on the right track.
We now come to my colleague and friend Mr. Pannick, a fellow of All Souls college. He also wrote to The Guardian. We were on target because it was as surprising to find my colleague Mr. Pannick against us as it would be to find Mr. Leslie Rowse opining that there was something lacking in modern Shakespearian scholarship. He is not generally on our side. We are on the right lines.
I was worried because we had heard not a word from Mr. Livingstone. But, fear not, out came the press notices. He says that the Government will cause him serious problems. I do not think that we need to worry about that.
Those are the people who are against us. It is a pretty good collection.
Who are the people who are with us? Here the story becomes a little more difficult. The hon. Member for Copeland rightly spotted a matter of difficult definition:


are the Liberals with us or against us? We know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has been a major contributor to this debate. He has been here all day, listening quietly. He will not be recorded in Hansard, but he is here in spirit. He took up his typewriter with its large type face, indicative of high office, wrote to the Prime Minister, and said:
I enclose some material which I believe to be simply party political propaganda sent out at ratepayers' expense.
Indeed, it is. It is a lot of nonsense. He continued:
I believe this to be a highly improper use of public funds and I should be most grateful if you could let me know what action your Government intends to take to prevent further abuses of the Local Government Act.
If he had been here, we could have told him. That is what the Bill is all about.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was sort of with us and sort of not with us. He was like Mr. Gaitskell on one famous occasion, to which the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was a contributor. He did not say yes and he did not say no. That was rather sad. We had hoped that the descendants of Gladstone and of those who drove corruption out of the management of money in national elections would have decided upon which side of this fence they would like to come down.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Rhondda and for Blackburn, said that the same conventions ought to govern central Government as govern local government. I do not wholly dissent from that point of view. I have here the kind of thing that is allowed at the moment under the convention that governs local government. One can issue a full-page advertisement of the Prime Minister's face, and produce badges which refer to rate capping, and to
service-slashing, job-axing, money-grabbing Thatcher.
That is Hackney.
I have here also an example of what is allowed under the conventions that govern central Government. My Department thought that it would look into this question of persuasion, and it published a pamphlet about the Rates Act. It is a very fine pamphlet. It is entirely true.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: The document that the hon. Gentleman is holding in his hand was not put though people's letter-boxes. It was placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), to whom it is always a pleasure to listen and whose conviction and power of oratory has always impressed me, knows a great deal more about history and English literature than many other right hon. and hon. Members. He will therefore, I hope, allow me to make just a small historical discursus. In 1835 a Royal Commission found:
In general, the corporate funds are but partially applied to the municipal purposes, such as the preservation of the peace by an efficient police, or in watching or in lighting the town, but they are frequently expended in feasting and paying the salaries of incompetent officers.
It was a Conservative Government—that of Peel—with the same sort of radicalism as the present one that dealt with that matter. I am afraid that the House of Lords—as happened in those days but never happens now —made rather a fool of itself and tried to reject the Bill. But that was dealt with. Mr. Peel sent for the Duke of Wellington, and it was all organised. That was the famous turtle soup scandal. I believe that today we are dealing with the modern version of the turtle soup scandal. People

have got their noses into the municipal trough. Our objective is to get their noses out. Just as Peel cleaned up the turtle soup and Gladstone the national elections, I have great pride in bringing before the House a Bill which is aimed at stopping this new municipal turtle soup corruption.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 176.

Division No.6]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Cope, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Cormack, Patrick


Alexander, Richard
Corrie, John


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Ancram, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount


Arnold, Tom
Critchley, Julian


Ashdown, Paddy
Crouch, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dykes, Hugh


Beith, A. J.
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David


Benyon, William
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Best, Keith
Fallon, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Farr, Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Favell, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Blackburn, John
Fletcher, Alexander


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Body, Richard
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Freeman, Roger


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fry, Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gale, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Galley, Roy


Bright, Graham
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl 'thpes)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bruce, Malcolm
Gow, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grant, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Greenway, Harry


Buck, Sir Antony
Gregory, Conal


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian


Butler, Hon Adam
Ground, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cartwright, John
Hannam, John


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Harvey, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, J.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hayward, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Heddle, John


Conway, Derek
Henderson, Barry


Coombs, Simon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael






Hickmet, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hind, Kenneth
Osborn, Sir John


Hirst, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Holt, Richard
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Penhaligon, David


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Howells, Geraint
Pollock, Alexander


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Powley, John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hunter, Andrew
Raffan, Keith


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rhodes James, Robert


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kennedy, Charles
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knowles, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Knox, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lawrence, Ivan
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lester, Jim
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Silvester, Fred


Lord, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Luce, Richard
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lyell, Nicholas
Spencer, Derek


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Neil
Steel, Rt Hon David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maclennan, Robert
Stokes, John


Madel, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Major, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maples, John
Thurnham, Peter


Marland, Paul
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marlow, Antony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mather, Carol
Trippier, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wainwright, R.


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mellor, David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Merchant, Piers
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Wallace, James


Moate, Roger
Ward, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Watts, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wheeler, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wiggin, Jerry


Mudd, David
Wood, Timothy


Murphy, Christopher
Yeo, Tim


Neale, Gerrard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Neubert, Michael



Newton, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Ian Lang and


Norris, Steven
Mr. Tony Durant


Onslow, Cranley






NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hardy, Peter


Anderson, Donald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Ashton, Joe
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Barnett, Guy
Home Robertson, John


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Benn, Tony
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Janner, Hon Greville


Blair, Anthony
John, Brynmor


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Boyes, Roland
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lamond, James


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Caborn, Richard
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ian
Loyden, Edward


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McCartney, Hugh


Canavan, Dennis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McGuire, Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clarke, Thomas
McKelvey, William


Clay, Robert
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McTaggart, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Coleman, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Conlan, Bernard
Martin, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbett, Robin
Meacher, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, William


Craigen, J. M.
Mikardo, Ian


Crowther, Stan
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cunningham, Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Nellist, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Deakins, Eric
O'Brien, William


Dewar, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dobson, Frank
Park, George


Dormand, Jack
Patchett, Terry


Dubs, Alfred
Pavitt, Laurie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pendry, Tom


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pike, Peter


Eadie, Alex
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Randall, Stuart


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Redmond, M.


Ellis, Raymond
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Ewing, Harry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fatchett, Derek
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Faulds, Andrew
Robertson, George


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rogers, Allan


Fisher, Mark
Rooker, J. W.


Flannery, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Forrester, John
Sheerman, Barry


Foster, Derek
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Foulkes, George
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Garrett, W. E.
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Godman, Dr Norman
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Golding, John
Skinner, Dennis


Gould, Bryan
Soley, Clive


Gourlay, Harry
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Stott, Roger






Strang, Gavin
Welsh, Michael


Straw, Jack
White, James


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Wilson, Gordon


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Winnick, David


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Woodall, Alec


Tinn, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Torney, Tom



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wareing, Robert
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Weetch, Ken
Mr. John McWilliam.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Liverpool

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Eddie Loyden: A moment ago, I saw the Secretary of State for the Environment in the Chamber. I would have thought that he would have stayed to hear what I consider to be an important and urgent debate. I hope that he will return to hear it, because I wished to present my case to him. No doubt he will read with great interest much of what has been said today by my hon. Friends. I hope that, at the meeting tomorrow, he will begin to recognise the problems of Merseyside, and especially those of Liverpool.
The problems of Liverpool in particular and Merseyside in general did not begin with the election of a Labour council in 1983. I was born in Liverpool in 1923 in the heart of the slums of that city. During all my life there I experienced, worked and lived with and went to school in abject poverty and misery. Throughout that period, Liverpool city council was in the hands of the Tories, and that remained the position until the late post-war period.
The wealth of the city was built on the ports—on commerce, shipbuilding and ship repairing—and the merchant princes and shipowners built massive monuments to the prosperity that accrued to them. Those monuments are still to be seen in the form of Liverpool pierhead, William Brown street, the Walker art gallery and George's hall. There are many monuments to the prosperity that was brought about by the working classes of Liverpool. Those buildings and monuments, beautiful though some of them are, overlooked—as they still overlook—some of the worst slums in western Europe.
The people lived in the slums, in rat-infested properties, in cellars and in basements. Anybody who wants to learn the history of Liverpool need only read the reports of the medical officers of health for those years, with details of the infantile mortality rates, at one time the highest in the nation. One reads of the number of deaths between birth and fifteen, of the disease-ridden areas where children who survived had to be strong indeed. The weak went under. The hearse was a daily visitor through the cobbled streets of Liverpool taking away children who died from malnutrition and the diseases that were rampant in the city at that time.
They were the worst possible conditions that human beings ever suffered, yet that was at the heart of great prosperity in a great port. The working class of Merseyside and Liverpool did not benefit from that greatness. There were large armies of unskilled casual labour in the docks, with 20,000–plus men going out every day trying to earn a living, working one day and being unemployed the next. In shipbuilding and ship repairing, the same state of affairs existed, with men working part-time, trying to feed their families on the pittance that they were paid.
I was part of that. My first job on leaving school was in a boot warehouse in Scotland road. I received the princely sum of 6s 6d a week, which went towards the budget of my family. I was one of the many thousands of kids in Liverpool who were in the same position. When I went to sea at the age of 14½, I found an even worse world among the seamen. They were living in absolutely dreadful conditions, yet many Liverpool people had to find their living by going to sea.
That is the backcloth to the city of Liverpool. Remember, I am talking not of a thousand years ago or even of the Victorian era. The slums were there long after the war. I recall the misery of the courts, with 12 people to a court, with one tap and one lavatory at the end of each court for that number of people. That was the extent of disregard that the Tory council and Tory Government had for the working class of that and many other cities.
After the war, Liverpool had high hopes for the future as the slums began to be cleared and industries came to Liverpool and Merseyside. A new dawn had broken, in the view of the people of the city. But over the years, running into the 1970s, we saw the role played by the Liberal party, with an era of hung councils, Tory-Liberal administrations and one financial cut after another, all against a backcloth of poverty, misery and rising unemployment. They, too, have a clear responsibility for the situation in Merseyside, especially in Liverpool. Their targets, pitched so low were at fault. Not a single public sector house was built in the four years when the Liberal party was in office. The Liberal council had no regard for the misery and poverty of the people. It was rightly kicked out, to bring in a council that was prepared to do something.
I am not suggesting that the whole post-war housing development was the fault of the Liberals. There were faults long before then. People were condemned to live in the misery of high-rise flats and houses unfit for families to be reared in. The then Government contributed to those conditions. In the 1970s, the Liberals saw even more clearly than the Tories that it was a case of cutting the rates in a city that needed more public and private investment. They disregarded that, and they paid the penalty.
In 1983, the Labour party came to power. It was prepared to tackle those problems, many of them for the first time. Labour councillors began to tackle the problems of the housing estates and high-rise flats. They began to put parks in working-class areas where they were needed and where they had not been before. They built sports centres in working class areas where people had never seen such centres. Those acts are now judged criminal. The retention in work of people who are not prepared to be added to the lengthening dole queues in Liverpool is regarded as a criminal act.
The leader of Liverpool city council, who is a Quaker and who would not offend the law under any circumstances, has been pressed by the Government's actions into a position where he is called a criminal in the technical sense of the word. It is a scandal and a shame that honest and decent men in Liverpool fighting against the ongoing decline of the city and trying to push back the barriers of poverty and misery are condemned as criminals by the Government.
The final push that moved Liverpool to the brink was made by the Government. They have the main responsibility. This country is still wealthy. The 500,000 people who live in Liverpool are British citizens—they are not an alien force. They are part of the United Kingdom and are therefore the Government's responsibility. The Secretary of State and the Government cannot stand aside and see Liverpool swinging in the air waiting for someone to cut the rope so that it can drop. Neither can Liverpool be seen in isolation. The city is a microcosm of what is happening in all our major cities, especially the old

industrial cities in the northern regions. If no immediate action is taken, this country will reap a whirlwind that we have not seen in this or in previous centuries.
Recent statements have been made in the Stonefrost report and by the Secretary of State. Usually, the Secretary of State conducts his dialogue about 240 miles away from Liverpool. He has never attempted to meet councillors around the table to discuss the problems. He has not attempted to recognise the enormity and seriousness of the crisis in the city.
No Government have the right to disregard the plight of a major city and its population as this Government are doing. Whatever the council does—if it fiddles around with its budget and increases rates by 15 per cent. or, in reality 24 per cent.— commerce and industry are threatening that they will fold up their tents and go if rents rise in Liverpool. On numerous occasions they have said that the margin upon which they work will become intolerable and they will go away.
Do the Government want to conduct a vendetta against the people on Liverpool city council, the majority of whom are not members of Militant Tendency but Labour party members? They are youthful and dynamic and want to tackle the city's problems. Are the Government waiting for the city to surrender to them and to the Secretary of State because they do not like the faces or the behaviour of some of the people? That is infantile behaviour, which is not expected of a Secretary of State—even a Tory Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State must recognise that the problem will not go away. The crisis will be there tomorrow and the next day unless the Government intervene and say that they will have discussions with the Labour-controlled city council to enable the city to continue the good work that it has been doing to ease tension where tension has been growing. It has done everything it can to relieve those tensions. We all say that we are worried about inner cities and about what we have seen over the past two years or longer. Tension arises from the conditions in which people live.
The city has remained the same throughout two world wars. It has always had double the level of national unemployment. That is the story of Liverpool to which the Government and the Secretary of State must listen. No Government can disregard the need for intervention to put the city on its feet and enable the council to do its necessary job.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) to discuss the grim situation now facing the people of Liverpool. I listened this afternoon to the speeches of the hon. Members for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). There can be no doubt of the sincerity and the passion felt by those hon. Members. I only wish that the object of their fury and passion was better defined.
For the first time in this country, a city has been deliberately brought to the edge of collapse by those who run it—the very people who should have its best interests at heart. A council's tactics of confrontation threaten to put at risk the elderly and handicapped, to close schools and allow rubbish to pile up in the streets. The slogan of those councillors is:


No cuts in jobs, services and housing programmes.
The result of their campaign will be no services, 31,000 employees out of work and the housing programme, by which the councillors set so much store, in jeopardy. Any right-minded person must be appalled at the idiotic abuse of the trust placed by the people of Liverpool in their councillors.
Throughout, the Government have urged the council to resolve the crisis. The council has always been able to do so and it still can now. The keynote of my speech is that the council can still draw back from the brink. It must pull back now.
The hon. Member for Garston is one of those who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last Thursday asking him to meet the city council to discuss the position. My right hon. Friend made it clear, as he has done on many previous occasions, that he is not prepared to meet the city council until it behaves responsibly and legally. The hon. Member for Walton has said that he wished it were possible for us to have rational and civilised discussion. The council could, if it was prepared to set a proper rate.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the hon. Lady advocating a rate increase? If she is, that is strange phenomenon for a Conservative Minister.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member will find out exactly what I am advocating as I progress with my speech. My right hon. Friend has agreed to meet the hon. Members from Liverpool later this week, and in the light of what I say this evening, I hope that hon. Members will not come in the expectation that the Government will bail out the city council.
It is worth reminding the House how today's situation arose. Since the time of its election in May 1983, the Militant-dominated council in Liverpool has deliberately sought confrontation with the Government. Of that there can be no shadow of doubt, and hon. Members need not take my word for it.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Lady, like her hon. Friends and others—unfortunately, sometimes in my own party—consistently talks about a Militant-dominated city council. It is not true, it never has been true, and it is time people stopped telling lies about it.

Mrs. Rumbold: I know that the hon. Member for Walton believes that there are only a few Militant members on Liverpool city council. If that were the case, if the majority of the councillors are moderate, as he claims they are, why do they not prevail upon their colleagues to behave in a responsible manner?
In an open letter to the people of Liverpool, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition talked of the attack on the city of Liverpool and its people being perpetrated by
A political grouping which, by its dogma and by its deliberate refusal to adopt the common Labour course of setting realistic rates, has added a new level of crisis; an extra layer of anxiety to the problems already endured by the people of this deprived city.
Last year, similar confrontations took the form of months of political posturing, leading to a long-delayed rate within a balanced budget. It was merely a preview of this year's events, the only difference being that the council withdrew from the brink in July. Moreover, there

were no massive concessions from the Government as the propaganda from Liverpool city council claimed at that time.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The hon. Lady is talking about what happened last year. Will she reflect on the letter from the previous Secretary of State for the Environment to the leader of the city council, Councillor John Hamilton, in which the Secretary of State said he would endeavour to see that there would be better investment in housing and that the housing investment programme would be improved? Will the hon. Lady tell the House the figures for the Government's housing investment programme in Liverpool last year and also tell us what it is this year? Has her right hon. Friend kept his word?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member will see that my right hon. Friend has indeed kept his word.
The Government warned the council last year that its problems were not over. We urged it to look at all available sources to help solve Liverpool's social and economic problems—the private sector, the local communities and the housing associations. The council ignored that advice, and clung to its dogmatic approach, apparently in the entirely mistaken belief that the Government would respond to blackmail if the council threatened to take its city into chaos.
This year, the council again refused to set a rate at the start of the financial year. When it eventually got around to setting a rate, it was set far too low to cover a grossly inflated budget of £265 million. By adopting this budget, the council, by its own choice, reduced its grant entitlement for the year by nearly £90 million. It left a gap of over £100 million between income and expenditure. Just as we had done last year, the Government urged the council to put its finances in order by reducing expenditure and tackling inefficiency and waste, but because of the way in which the grant system works, the council can gain roughly an extra £2 million in grant for every £1 million by which it reduces expenditure.
At the end of July, the council made its first tentative moves towards a lower budget, showing that it could do it. It reduced its planned spending by £10 million and immediately became entitled to a further £22·6 million in grant. That was a start, but it was not enough. It was up to the council to reduce expenditure further to a credible level. The council did so in September and this time claimed to have balanced the books, but only by the extraordinary tactic of making the entire work force redundant. That was from a Labour council claiming to care for its employees.

Mr. Terry Fields: The Minister says that we have to create economies in the expenditure of Liverpool city council. The only way to do that is to cut services and jobs. The terms of carrying out the Government's diktat have been worked out by the Liverpool city treasurer. Can the Minister explain the logic and the mathematics of it? Were the Government prepared to give us £67 million in grants for sacking 10.000 workers, plus £60 million in unemployment benefit, plus £10 million in redundancy payments for sacking those same workers? That is the only way in which it can be done.

Mrs. Rumbold: Anyone who knows anything about local government finance knows that it is possible to make


savings without reducing jobs and cutting services. It is possible for a council to make such reductions if it has the will to do it. No such will has been demonstrated by the Liverpool city council.
Immediately after the Liverpool city council's decision to make the work force redundant, the NUT challenged the decision in court and the court ruled that the teachers' notices were invalid. Subsequently the council has repeatedly promised to withdraw all redundancy notices but has not yet done so. Now the NUT has applied to the court to have the rate quashed, opening the way for the council to make a new one at a proper level. We shall have to wait and see what happens.
It is not only the Government who are urging the council to put its house in order. With the co-operation of the council, the Labour party and the national unions gave four local government finance experts a remit to investigate the finances of the authority, but the council's support ended as soon as it became known that the treasurers' report did not go the council's way because it showed that Liverpool could still sort out its own finances.
The report has been welcomed by almost everyone except the council. All the council has done is tell its work force that they will not be paid after Thursday, and to continue with the totally unrealistic assertion that the crisis is the Government's fault and that the Government should step in to help it out.
By failing to act on the conclusions of the Stonefrost report, the council has exhausted the patience even of those who were trying to help it—the unions, the Labour party and other local authorities. Today, just three days before many of the city's 31,000 employees are set to receive their last pay packets, the TGWU workers called on the council to compromise and to set a 15 per cent. rate increase to balance its books. The TGWU has 1,000 members working for the council, and with the second biggest union, NALGO, and the teachers' unions all having rejected the Labour group's tactics, today's vote must be seen by all to be a major setback.
The only way to win the battle for money from central Government was by a united campaign by city workers, and that has clearly not developed. They have called on the council to balance its books through the Stonefrost report recommendations. If only the council would do that, there could be some salvation. The Leader of the Opposition said:
the report demonstrates conclusively that there was never any justification for seeking to sack or lay off 31,000 workers, or for claiming that in order to balance its budget, Liverpool city council would have to lay off thousands of workers, cut services and devastate its housing programme. Playing politics with people's jobs must cease and political dogma must give way to realism.
I am glad to be able to record complete agreement with the Labour party. That is just what the Government have been saying all along. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has also said:

The report shows clearly that it is within the competence and discretion of the City Council to resolve this crisis now".
I can easily understand the exasperation underlying his statement:
The options were there all the time for people who really wanted to find them".
The council's unhappy officials have known and stated clearly the options all along, but council leaders do not want to listen. For pure political dogma, Liverpool council leaders refuse to accept reality. They have shrugged off all attempts to help them. They are on their own because they have chosen to be so.
In all this, it is the people of Liverpool and the council's employees for whom we must feel most concern. The bishops in Liverpool recognise the suffering which may be caused as a result of the militant policies of confrontation, in October they wrote:
"Militant's intransigence and unwillingness to engage in serious dialogue creates divisiveness and uncertainty in which the most vulnerable elements of the community suffer, usually schoolchildren and elderly people unable to cope with a reduction of services … We deplore the confrontation that has to a great extent been manufactured by the Militant Leadership of the City Council".
While we all agree that Liverpool has very serious economic and social problems, the council's claim that it is under-funded just does not stand up. More than £1 billion of Government money was put into Merseyside last year. In rate support grant and urban programme, Liverpool has received £1,800 per head of population since 1979. In contrast, Birmingham has received only £1,400. The council could have had more Government support, which it has deliberately decided to forgo. By spending way over target, it has forfeited rate support grant, and some of the £2·5 million extra urban programme money found for the council last year remains unspent.
The Government continue their efforts to help Liverpool in a whole range of different ways. The Merseyside Development Corporation has spent £79 million in Liverpool on the regeneration of derelict docklands. In 1981, the special Merseyside task force was set up to work with local authorities, government agencies, and the private sector. We want to co-operate with the city council in the task of regenerating Liverpool—it is the council which has taken the decision to go it alone.
There is no change in the Government's policy towards Liverpool city council. Of course, we are watching the situation closely, but like the Labour party, like the unions, like the churches and like the authors of the Stonefrost report, we believe that the council can and must take action itself. The city council knows that it is within its competence to put its city on a sound financial footing, to prevent hardship and to maintain jobs and services. I urge the city most strongly to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.